DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. The Applicant has elected the Group 1 (claims 1 – 10) for prosecution on the merits without traverse.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) maybe used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 - 14 of U. S. Patent No. 11,424,787 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,424,787. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present application is obvious in view of the claims 1 - 14 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,424,787. Specifically, the claims of U.S. Patent (11,424,787) are the same elements, same function, and same result as claims of present application. Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
More specifically, the claim 1 of the present application is the same elements, same function, and same result as specifically claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent (11,424,787), specially, the independent claim 1 of the present application is the same invention as the independent claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent (11,424,787).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows, and the difference of the limitations are wordings differently.
For example;
Instant Application
U.S Patent 11,424,787
1. A method for a wireless transmitter to adjust a transmission power level of a message, the method comprising: a) receiving or using an algorithm configured to take, as input, one or more network parameters, one or more environmental parameters, and one or more parameters of a planned message, and to provide, as output, a recommended transmission power level of the planned message; b) determining one or more of the input parameters, and providing the determined one or more input parameters to the algorithm; c) receiving, from the algorithm, the recommended transmission power level; d) adjusting a transmitter power according to the recommended transmission power level; and e) transmitting the planned message.
1. A method for a base station in a wireless network to transmit a message, the method comprising:
a. measuring one or more network parameters, one or more message parameters, and one or more environmental parameters; b. providing the measured network parameters, message parameters, and environmental parameters as inputs to an algorithm configured to provide, as output, a recommended transmission power level; and c. transmitting the message according to the recommended transmission power level, wherein: d. the network parameters comprise a message throughput or a message failure rate; e. the message parameters comprise a distance from the base station to a recipient of the message; and f. the environmental parameters comprise a noise or interference level.
2. A method for a base station in a wireless network to transmit a message, the method comprising:
a. measuring one or more network parameters, one or more message parameters, and one or more environmental parameters; b. providing the measured network parameters, message parameters, and environmental parameters as inputs to an algorithm configured to provide, as output, a recommended transmission power level; and c. transmitting the message according to the recommended transmission power level, wherein: d. the algorithm is based at least in part on an artificial intelligence model comprising one or more adjustable variables; and e. the one or more adjustable variables are adjusted to predict network performance based, at least in part, on the one or more network parameters, the one or more message parameters, and the one or more environmental parameters.
The additional limitation is not affecting the scope of the present invention. In addition, even though the claim of present application omitted or rearrangement of the claim structure (simply rearranged and restructured the claim elements using same or similar words), the limitation of independent claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent (11,424,787) is encompassed the claimed invention of the independent claim 1 of the present application.
Therefore, the function and results of the claim invention of present application are same as the claim invention of the U.S. Patent (11,424,787).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 6,301,485).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches that a method for a wireless transmitter to adjust a transmission power level of a message (abstract, Fig. 1, 4, and column 1, lines 61 – column 2, lines 64). Lee teaches that receiving or using an algorithm configured to take, as input, one or more network parameters, one or more environmental parameters, and one or more parameters of a planned message, and to provide, as output, a recommended transmission power level of the planned message (abstract, column 4, lines 16 – column 5, lines 67, Fig. 1, 4, and column 1, lines 44 – column 2, lines 64, where teaches receiving message including power control order, control parameters, that is recommend or determining prediction transmission power level), determining one or more of the input parameters, and providing the determined one or more input parameters to the algorithm (abstract, column 4, lines 16 – column 5, lines 67, Fig. 1, 4, and column 1, lines 44 – column 2, lines 64, where teaches receiving message including power control order, control parameters, that is recommend or determining prediction transmission power level), receiving, from the algorithm, the recommended transmission power level (abstract, column 4, lines 16 – column 5, lines 67, Fig. 1, 4, and column 1, lines 44 – column 2, lines 64, where teaches receiving message including power control order, control parameters, that is recommend or determining prediction transmission power level), and adjusting a transmitter power according to the recommended transmission power level (abstract, column 4, lines 16 – column 5, lines 67, Fig. 1, 4, and column 1, lines 44 – column 2, lines 64, where teaches the power control performed by the power measuring unit, comparator and power control bit generator is a closed loop power control, and the base station predicts a receiving power according to a transmission speed of the signal transmitted from the mobile station, compares the predicted receiving power with the power control reference values Po which have been pre-setting in every base station, and transmits the proper power control order to the mobile station with the user data, thereby enabling the mobile station to transmit the signal by using the adjusted transmission power according the power control order), and transmitting the planned message (abstract, column 4, lines 16 – column 5, lines 67, Fig. 1, 4, and column 1, lines 44 – column 2, lines 64, where teaches transmitting the message for the adjusted transmission power level).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches that the one or more network parameters comprise at least two of: a) a message failure rate; b) a number of messages transmitted per second; c) a number of bits transmitted per second; d) a number of active users in the network; and e) a geographical extent of the network (abstract, column 4, lines 16 – column 5, lines 67, Fig. 1, 4, and column 1, lines 44 – column 2, lines 64).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches that the algorithm comprises a mathematical or logical function relating the recommended transmission power level to the input parameters (column 4, lines 16 – column 5, lines 67, Fig. 1, 4, and column 1, lines 44 – column 2, lines 64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 2, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Montalvo (US 2021/0345120).
Regarding claims 2 and 6-7, Lee does not specifically disclose the limitation “the planned message is transmitted according to 5G or 6G technology, the algorithm comprises an AI (artificial intelligence) model that comprises a computer program or subprogram derived from an AI model”. However, Montalvo teaches the limitation “the planned message is transmitted according to 5G or 6G technology, the algorithm comprises an AI (artificial intelligence) model that comprises a computer program or subprogram derived from an AI model” (Fig. 1, pages 9, paragraphs 112 and 120, and pages 11, paragraphs 138, where teaches communicating a message or information using 5G technology and operating to drive by an AI (artificial intelligence) model). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Lee’s system as taught by Montalvo, provide the motivation to improve communication performance in wireless communication system.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Lee does not specifically disclose the limitation “a multi-dimensional table or array of values relating the recommended transmission power level to the input parameters, and configured to be revised or updated according to wireless updating command”. Montalvo teaches the limitation “a multi-dimensional table or array of values relating the recommended transmission power level to the input parameters, and configured to be revised or updated according to wireless updating command” (pages 16, paragraphs 187 – 188, Fig. 1, 24, and pages 10, paragraphs 132-pages 11, paragraphs 133, where teaches a multi-dimensional map relating the transmission power level to the input parameters, and configuring updating for map). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Lee’s system as taught by Montalvo, provide the motivation to improve communication performance in wireless communication system.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitation “the one or more message parameters comprise at least two of: a) a length of the planned message; b) a requested QoS (quality of service) of the planned message; c) a distance between the transmitter and an intended receiver of the planned message; d) an obscuration between the transmitter and the intended receiver; and e) a transmission power level used in a previous message to the intended receiver” as specified the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rubin et al. (US 2017/0243485) discloses V2V Safety Using Learned Signal Timing.
Boudrean et al. (US 2017/0245221) discloses Inter-Network Assisted Power Control for Interference Mitigation of D2D Communications.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
J.L
October 31, 2025
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649