Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. Regarding claims 24-25, claim limitations “means for identifying an end-to-end network latency,” “means for causing the wireless communication device to set an idle timeout period,” and “means for causing the wireless communication device to set a first idle timeout period” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “for” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 24-25 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, also described in the specification, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: wireless communication network including one or more wireless communication devices, e.g., a wireless communication device 102 (see FIG. 1, specification para 29), and device 102 may include a controller 124 configured to perform and/or to trigger, cause, instruct and/or control device 102 to perform, one or more communications, to generate and/or communicate one or more messages and/or transmissions, and/or to perform one or more functionalities, operations and/or procedures between device 102 and one or more other devices (see FIG. 1, specification para 55). The claimed function achieved by the structure is also described in the specification (see FIG. 6, specification para 223-225).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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.
4. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 15-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lenart ‘064 (US 2011/0319064, “Lenart ‘064”).
Regarding claims 1, 20, and 24, Lenart ‘064 discloses a product comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions operable to, when executed by at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to cause a wireless communication device (FIG. 3, para 45; a wireless communication device includes a controller and memory employed to run applications) to:
identify an end-to-end network latency of a data stream communicated between the wireless communication device and an endpoint via a wireless communication link between the wireless communication device and an Access Point (AP) (FIGS. 1-2, para 23-30; a mobile wireless device measures a round trip time (RTT) from sending a data message to an application server to receiving an acknowledgment message via a wireless connection over a radio access network (RAN) that includes access points; the mobile wireless device reads on the wireless communication device; the application server reads on an endpoint; the RTT reads on an end-to-end network latency); and
set an idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on the end-to-end network latency of the data stream (FIGS. 1-2, para 23-30; in order to save energy, the mobile wireless device automatically transitions from a first operating state to a second operating state, where the second operating state is a low-power consumption operating state, after an amount of time exceeding a threshold predetermined based on the measured RTT, in the absence of subsequent data traffic; the predetermined threshold based on the measured RTT reads on an idle timeout period based on the end-to-end network latency),
wherein the idle timeout period comprises a time period after which the wireless communication device is to be allowed to switch the wireless communication link from an active mode to a power save mode when the wireless communication link is idle (FIGS. 1-2, para 23-30; the predetermined threshold is a time period after which the mobile wireless device automatically switches from the active, first operating state to the low-power, second operating state when there is no data traffic subsequent to the RTT measurement).
Regarding claim 15, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Lenart ‘064 discloses configured to prohibit the wireless communication device from switching the wireless communication link to the power save mode when the link is idle for a time period shorter than the idle timeout period (FIGS. 1-2, para 23-30; a mobile wireless device measures a RTT between the device and the application server; in order to save energy, the mobile wireless device automatically transitions from a first operating state to a second operating state, where the second operating state is a low-power consumption operating state, after an amount of time exceeding a threshold predetermined based on the measured RTT, in the absence of subsequent data traffic; thus, the mobile wireless device does not switch to the low-power operating state, in the absence of subsequent data traffic, before the amount of time exceeds the predetermined threshold).
Regarding claim 16, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Lenart ‘064 discloses configured to set the idle timeout period to be equal to or greater than the end-to-end network latency of the data stream (FIGS. 1-2, para 23-30; a mobile wireless device measures a RTT between the device and the application server; in order to save energy, the mobile wireless device automatically transitions from a first operating state to a second operating state, where the second operating state is a low-power consumption operating state, after an amount of time exceeding a threshold predetermined based on the measured RTT, in the absence of subsequent data traffic; the predetermined threshold based on the measured RTT reads on the idle timeout period; the RTT reads on the end-to-end network latency; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Regarding claim 17, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Lenart ‘064 discloses configured to cause the wireless communication device to identify the end-to-end network latency of the data stream based on a Round Trip Time (RTT) between the wireless communication device and the endpoint (FIGS. 1-2, para 23-30; a mobile wireless device measures a RTT between the device and the application server).
Regarding claim 18, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Lenart ‘064 discloses comprising a radio to communicate the data stream (FIG. 3, para 45; the wireless communication device includes a transceiver for communication with the application server).
Regarding claim 19, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
Further, Lenart ‘064 discloses comprising one or more antennas connected to the radio, a memory, and a processor to execute instructions of an operating system of the wireless communication device (FIG. 3, para 45; a wireless communication device includes a controller and memory employed to run applications, and an antenna connected to the transceiver).
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 2-3, 10-12, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenart ‘064, in view of Chamarty ‘941 (US 2019/0041941, “Chamarty ‘941”).
Regarding claims 2, 21, and 25, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1, 20, and 24, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Lenart ‘064 discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the wireless communication device to set a first idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a determination that the end-to-end network latency of the data stream is a first end-to-end network latency (FIGS. 1-2, para 23-30; in order to save energy, the mobile wireless device automatically transitions from a first operating state to a second operating state, where the second operating state is a low-power consumption operating state, after an amount of time exceeding a threshold predetermined based on the measured RTT, in the absence of subsequent data traffic; the predetermined threshold based on the measured RTT reads on an idle timeout period based on the end-to-end network latency).
Although Lenart ‘064 discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the wireless communication device to set a first idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a determination that the end-to-end network latency of the data stream is a first end-to-end network latency, Lenart ‘064 does not specifically disclose to set a first idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a determination that the end-to-end network latency of the data stream is a first end-to-end network latency, and to set a second idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a determination that the end-to-end network latency of the data stream is a second end-to-end network latency, wherein the second idle timeout period is different from the first idle timeout period, and the second end-to-end network latency is different from the first end-to-end network latency.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chamarty ‘941 teaches to set a first idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a determination that the end-to-end network latency of the data stream is a first end-to-end network latency, and to set a second idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a determination that the end-to-end network latency of the data stream is a second end-to-end network latency (FIGS. 2-3 and 6, para 3, 7, 18, 32-43, and 56-62; in a method for power management in a subsystem of a wireless, portable computing device, a resource power manager (RPM) periodically receives votes from a set of client components, where each vote includes a client latency tolerance indication; RPM determines an aggregate client latency tolerance in response to the client latency tolerance indications; the aggregate client latency tolerance is used to determine micro-idle time values that are associated with corresponding micro-idle timers; each of the micro-idle timers is set to an associated micro-idle time value, based on the aggregate client latency tolerance; thus, multiple micro-idle time values are set based on a determination of multiple client latency tolerance indications),
wherein the second idle timeout period is different from the first idle timeout period (FIG. 2, para 32-33; the micro-idle time values are of various durations), and
the second end-to-end network latency is different from the first end-to-end network latency (FIG. 3, para 34-43; the client latency aggregation function is a minimum function, where the minimum client latency tolerance is determined among all the received client latency tolerance indications; thus, the client latency tolerance indications are different).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lenart ‘064’s product that sets an idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an end-to-end network latency of the data stream, to include Chamarty ‘941’s micro-idle time values that are based on aggregate client latency tolerance. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide methods for power management in a subsystem of a portable computing device (Chamarty ‘941, para 6).
Regarding claim 3, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Chamarty ‘941 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 2, as outlined above.
Further, Chamarty ‘941 teaches wherein the second idle timeout period is longer than the first idle timeout period (FIG. 2, para 32-33; the micro-idle time values are of various durations; thus, a micro-idle time value is longer than another micro-idle time value), and
the second end-to-end network latency is greater than the first end-to-end network latency (FIG. 3, para 34-43; the client latency aggregation function is a minimum function, where the minimum client latency tolerance is determined among all the received client latency tolerance indications; thus, the client latency tolerance indications are different, and a client latency tolerance is greater than another client latency tolerance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064 and Chamarty ‘941, to further include Chamarty ‘941’s micro-idle time values that are of various durations. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide methods for power management in a subsystem of a portable computing device (Chamarty ‘941, para 6).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 20, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Lenart ‘064 does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the wireless communication device to set the idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an other end-to-end network latency of an other data stream communicated between the wireless communication device and an other endpoint via the wireless communication link.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chamarty ‘941 teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the wireless communication device to set the idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an other end-to-end network latency of an other data stream communicated between the wireless communication device and an other endpoint via the wireless communication link (FIGS. 2-3 and 6, para 3, 7, 18, 32-43, and 56-62; in a method for power management in a subsystem of a wireless, portable computing device, a RPM periodically receives votes from a set of client components, where each vote includes a client latency tolerance indication; RPM determines an aggregate client latency tolerance in response to the client latency tolerance indications; the aggregate client latency tolerance is used to determine micro-idle time values that are associated with corresponding micro-idle timers; each of the micro-idle timers is set to an associated micro-idle time value, based on the aggregate client latency tolerance; thus, multiple micro-idle time values are set based on a determination of multiple client latency tolerance indications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lenart ‘064’s product that sets an idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an end-to-end network latency of the data stream, to include Chamarty ‘941’s micro-idle time values that are based on aggregate client latency tolerance. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide methods for power management in a subsystem of a portable computing device (Chamarty ‘941, para 6).
Regarding claim 11, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Lenart ‘064 does not specifically disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to set the idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a criterion corresponding to a plurality of end-to-end latencies corresponding to a plurality of data streams communicated via the wireless communication link.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chamarty ‘941 teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to set the idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a criterion corresponding to a plurality of end-to-end latencies corresponding to a plurality of data streams communicated via the wireless communication link (FIGS. 2-3 and 6, para 3, 7, 18, 32-43, and 56-62; in a method for power management in a subsystem of a wireless, portable computing device, a RPM periodically receives votes from a set of client components, where each vote includes a client latency tolerance indication; RPM determines an aggregate client latency tolerance in response to the client latency tolerance indications; the aggregate client latency tolerance is used to determine micro-idle time values that are associated with corresponding micro-idle timers; each of the micro-idle timers is set to an associated micro-idle time value, based on the aggregate client latency tolerance; the client latency aggregation function is a maximum function, where the maximum client latency tolerance is determined among all the received client latency tolerance indications; thus, multiple micro-idle time values are set based on a maximum client latency aggregation function as a criterion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lenart ‘064’s product that sets an idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an end-to-end network latency of the data stream, to include Chamarty ‘941’s micro-idle time values that are based on aggregate client latency tolerance. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide methods for power management in a subsystem of a portable computing device (Chamarty ‘941, para 6).
Regarding claim 12, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Chamarty ‘941 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
Further, Chamarty ‘941 teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to set the idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a maximal end-to-end network latency of the plurality of end-to-end network latencies (FIGS. 2-3 and 6, para 3, 7, 18, 32-43, and 56-62; in a method for power management in a subsystem of a wireless, portable computing device, a RPM periodically receives votes from a set of client components, where each vote includes a client latency tolerance indication; RPM determines an aggregate client latency tolerance in response to the client latency tolerance indications; the aggregate client latency tolerance is used to determine micro-idle time values that are associated with corresponding micro-idle timers; each of the micro-idle timers is set to an associated micro-idle time value, based on the aggregate client latency tolerance; the client latency aggregation function is a maximum function, where the maximum client latency tolerance is determined among all the received client latency tolerance indications; thus, multiple micro-idle time values are set based on a maximum client latency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064 and Chamarty ‘941, to further include Chamarty ‘941’s micro-idle time values that are based on aggregate client latency tolerance. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide methods for power management in a subsystem of a portable computing device (Chamarty ‘941, para 6).
8. Claims 4-5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenart ‘064, in view of Craft ‘177 (US 2015/0348177, “Craft ‘177”).
Regarding claims 4 and 22, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 20, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Lenart ‘064 does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the wireless communication device to adjust the idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a change in the end-to-end network latency.
Craft ‘177 teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the wireless communication device to adjust the idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on a change in the end-to-end network latency (para 75; request and response periods are increased in duration based on a network latency parameter increase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lenart ‘064’s product that sets an idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an end-to-end network latency of the data stream, to include Craft ‘177’s request and response periods that are increased in duration based on a network latency parameter increases. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce or eliminate the inoperative period to increase the total working time of the shared leased resource in a computer system (Craft ‘177, para 1).
Regarding claim 5, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Craft ‘177 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Further, Craft ‘177 teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to increase the idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an increase in the end-to-end network latency (para 75; request and response periods are increased in duration based on a network latency parameter increase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064 and Craft ‘177, to further include Craft ‘177’s request and response periods that are increased in duration based on a network latency parameter increases. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce or eliminate the inoperative period to increase the total working time of the shared leased resource in a computer system (Craft ‘177, para 1).
9. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenart ‘064, in view of Yang ‘512 (US 2022/0295512, “Yang ‘512”).
Regarding claim 6, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Lenart ‘064 does not specifically disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to determine, based on a priority of the data stream, whether the idle timeout period is to be set based on the end-to-end network latency of the data stream.
Yang ‘512 teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to determine, based on a priority of the data stream, whether the idle timeout period is to be set based on the end-to-end network latency of the data stream (para 101; terminal adjusts a data transmission period in response to the priority of the data being equal to or lower than the priority of a Uu logic channel for Uu data; thus, the terminal determines to adjust the data transmission period in response to the data priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lenart ‘064’s product that sets an idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an end-to-end network latency of the data stream, to include Yang ‘512’s terminal that determines to adjust the data transmission period in response to the data priority. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a transmission conflict using the uplink transmission resource of the Uu logic channel that exists when the sidelink communication multiplexes the uplink transmission resource of the Uu logical channel (Yang ‘512, para 5).
Regarding claim 7, Lenart ‘064 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Lenart ‘064 does not specifically disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to determine, based on a comparison between a priority of the data stream and a priority threshold, whether the idle timeout period is to be set based on the end-to-end network latency of the data stream.
Yang ‘512 teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to determine, based on a comparison between a priority of the data stream and a priority threshold, whether the idle timeout period is to be set based on the end-to-end network latency of the data stream (para 101; terminal adjusts a data transmission period in response to the priority of the data being equal to or lower than the priority of a Uu logic channel for Uu data; thus, the terminal determines to adjust the data transmission period in response to the data priority comparison with the priority of the Uu logic channel for Uu data; the Uu logic channel for Uu data reads on a priority threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lenart ‘064’s product that sets an idle timeout period for the wireless communication link based on an end-to-end network latency of the data stream, to include Yang ‘512’s terminal that determines to adjust the data transmission period in response to the data priority. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a transmission conflict using the uplink transmission resource of the Uu logic channel that exists when the sidelink communication multiplexes the uplink transmission resource of the Uu logical channel (Yang ‘512, para 5).
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenart ‘064, in view of Yang ‘512, and further in view of Chamarty ‘941.
Regarding claim 8, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Yang ‘512 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 7, as outlined above.
Further, Yang ‘512 teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device
to set a first idle timeout period based on the end-to-end network latency of the data stream, based on a determination that the priority of the data stream is above the priority threshold (para 64; terminal adjusts the uplink transmission period in response to the priority of the data being higher than the priority of a Uu logic channel for Uu data; the Uu logic channel for Uu data reads on a priority threshold); and
to set a second idle timeout period, based on a determination that the priority of the data stream is not above the priority threshold (para 101; terminal adjusts a data transmission period in response to the priority of the data being equal to or lower than the priority of a Uu logic channel for Uu data; the Uu logic channel for Uu data reads on a priority threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064 and Yang ‘512, to further include Yang ‘512’s terminal that adjusts a data transmission period in response to the priority of the data being equal to or lower than the priority of a Uu logic channel for Uu data. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a transmission conflict using the uplink transmission resource of the Uu logic channel that exists when the sidelink communication multiplexes the uplink transmission resource of the Uu logical channel (Yang ‘512, para 5).
However, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Yang ‘512 does not specifically disclose wherein the first idle timeout period is longer than the second idle timeout period.
Chamarty ‘941 teaches wherein the first idle timeout period is longer than the second idle timeout period (FIG. 2, para 32-33; the micro-idle time values are of various durations; thus, a micro-idle time value is longer than another micro-idle time value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064 and Yang ‘512, to include Chamarty ‘941’s micro-idle time values that are of various durations. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide methods for power management in a subsystem of a portable computing device (Chamarty ‘941, para 6).
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenart ‘064, in view of Yang ‘512, further in view of Chamarty ‘941, and further in view of Sabouri-Sichani ‘417 (US 2023/0121417, “Sabouri-Sichani ‘417”).
Regarding claim 9, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Yang ‘512 and Chamarty ‘941 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 8, as outlined above.
However, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Yang ‘512 and Chamarty ‘941 does not specifically disclose wherein the second idle timeout period comprises a default timeout period.
Sabouri-Sichani ‘417 teaches wherein the second idle timeout period comprises a default timeout period (para 68; a new time period is greater than a default time period; thus, the new time period comprises the default time period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064, Yang ‘512, and Chamarty ‘941, to include Sabouri-Sichani ‘417’s new time period that is greater than a default time period. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a need for a terminal device to be able to share resources of the terminal device between subscriptions in an optimal manner (Sabouri-Sichani ‘417, para 3).
12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenart ‘064, further in view of Chamarty ‘941, and further in view of Hu ‘344 (US 2009/0016344, “Hu ‘344”).
Regarding claim 13, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Chamarty ‘941 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
However, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Chamarty ‘941 does not specifically disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to determine whether to include a particular data stream in the plurality of data streams based on a priority of the particular data stream.
Hu ‘344 teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to determine whether to include a particular data stream in the plurality of data streams based on a priority of the particular data stream (para 39; data flows with same priority are converged and multiplexed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064 and Chamarty ‘941, to include Hu ‘344’s data flows with same priority that are converged and multiplexed. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce bearer information amount that needs to be maintained by various network entities and save storage and handling resources of system (Hu ‘344, para 31).
13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenart ‘064, further in view of Chamarty ‘941, further in view of Hu ‘344, and further in view of Yang ‘512.
Regarding claim 14, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Chamarty ‘941 and Hu ‘344 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 13, as outlined above.
Further, Hu ‘344 teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to determine whether to include the particular data stream in the plurality of data streams based on the priority of the particular data stream (para 39; data flows with same priority are converged and multiplexed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064, Chamarty ‘941, and Hu ‘344, to further include Hu ‘344’s data flows with same priority that are converged and multiplexed. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce bearer information amount that needs to be maintained by various network entities and save storage and handling resources of system (Hu ‘344, para 31).
Although Lenart ‘064 in combination with Chamarty ‘941 and Hu ‘344 discloses configured to cause the wireless communication device to determine whether to include the particular data stream in the plurality of data streams based on the priority of the particular data stream, Lenart ‘064 in combination with Chamarty ‘941 and Hu ‘344 does not specifically disclose based on a comparison between the priority of the particular data stream and a priority threshold.
Yang ‘512 teaches based on a comparison between the priority of the particular data stream and a priority threshold (para 101; terminal adjusts a data transmission period in response to the priority of the data being equal to or lower than the priority of a Uu logic channel for Uu data; thus, the terminal determines to adjust the data transmission period in response to the data priority comparison with the priority of the Uu logic channel for Uu data; the Uu logic channel for Uu data reads on a priority threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined product of Lenart ‘064, Chamarty ‘941, and Hu ‘344, to include Yang ‘512’s terminal that adjusts a data transmission period in response to the priority of the data being equal to or lower than the priority of a Uu logic channel for Uu data. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a transmission conflict using the uplink transmission resource of the Uu logic channel that exists when the sidelink communication multiplexes the uplink transmission resource of the Uu logical channel (Yang ‘512, para 5).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights