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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chang discloses only a prohibit timer that limits how often the UE transmits a bitrate query, and that paragraphs 0016, 0031, 0032 and 0033 of Chang therefore do not disclose receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chang discloses that the base station configures the first timer to activate when the UE transmits a bitrate query to the base station (0032). Chang further discloses that the configuration for the first timer specifies which events will trigger the first timer to activate, restart and stop, and the duration of time that the first timer runs once activated (0033). Chang discloses that the configuration specifies that the first timer is stopped whenever the UE receives a recommended bitrate from the base station (0033). Chang discloses that the base station makes a bitrate recommendation upon receipt of the bitrate query (0038). The first timer thus runs from transmission of the query and is stopped by receipt of the recommendation. Expiration of the first timer therefore indicates that no recommendation was received within the configured duration after the query was transmitted. Therefore, Chang discloses receiving no response to the RBR query within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query.
Applicant argues that paragraph 0035 of Chang describes the UE acting in response to receiving the recommended bitrate, and that acting in response to receiving a recommendation is not acting in response to a response timeout period expiring.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0035 of Chang is not relied upon to teach the fallback recited in claim 1. Chang is relied upon at paragraph 0027, which discloses that the UE cannot autonomously decide which bitrate to use without permission from the base station (0027). Read with the timer of paragraph 0033, which is stopped only by receipt of a recommended bitrate, the UE has received no permission when the first timer expires and therefore does not change to the requested bitrate. Paragraph 0035 of Chang is relied upon only for claims 2, 11 and 17, where receiving the recommendation is itself the recited trigger. Therefore, the rejection does not rest on paragraph 0035 for the limitation Applicant addresses.
Applicant argues that even if WO and Chang are combined, the combination does not establish the claimed relationship between expiration of the response timeout period and communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chang discloses that the UE cannot autonomously decide which bitrate to use without permission from the base station (0027). Chang discloses that the first timer is stopped whenever the UE receives a recommended bitrate from the base station (0033). Chang discloses that the base station makes a bitrate recommendation upon receipt of the bitrate query (0038). If the first timer expires, no recommended bitrate has been received, and the UE therefore lacks the permission Chang requires before changing the bitrate. The UE accordingly continues at the bitrate it is already using. Therefore, the combination discloses communicating using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 7 that the first timer of Chang resides in the UE, that the base station of Chang only configures that timer, and that neither WO nor Chang discloses a network device refraining from transmitting a response to the RBR query within a response timeout period.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 7 is rejected in this action over WO in view of Chang and further in view of Diachina. Chang is not relied upon to teach refraining from transmitting a response to the RBR query. Diachina is relied upon for that limitation. Diachina discloses that where the network node does not have the capacity to process the received requests, or the request load in general exceeds a certain threshold, the node does not transmit an explicit response to the requesting terminals (0027; Fig. 2). Diachina further discloses that the requesting terminal monitors for a predetermined monitoring window and receives neither an explicit grant nor an explicit reject within that window (0008). Therefore, the limitation is taught by the applied art.
Applicant argues with respect to claims 2, 11 and 17 that paragraphs 0060 and 0061 of WO do not disclose receiving, from the network device, a recommendation for the new bit rate after the response timeout period expires.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. WO is not relied upon to teach receiving a recommendation for the new bit rate after the response timeout period expires. Chang is relied upon for that limitation. Chang discloses that the UE is prohibited from transmitting another bitrate query until the first timer expires (0032). Chang discloses that the bitrate query may be a request for a specific rate based on a rate negotiation request from the second UE device (0028). Chang discloses that the base station makes a bitrate recommendation upon receipt of the bitrate query (0038), and that the recommendation may be a recommendation for a higher rate (0029). A recommendation for the requested rate is thus received after the first timer expires. Therefore, the limitation is taught by the applied art. Applicant argues that paragraph 0047 of Ranjan does not cure the asserted deficiencies of WO and Chang with respect to independent claims 1, 10 and 16. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ranjan is not relied upon to teach any limitation of claims 1, 10 or 16. WO and Chang are relied upon for those claims. Ranjan is relied upon only for the prohibit timer limitation of claims 4, 13 and 19 and the channel condition limitation of claims 5, 14 and 20. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following limitations in claims 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 use the term "means," are modified by functional language, and are not modified by sufficient structure for performing the recited function. These limitations are therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): Claims 16-21 all use the term "means" dealing with one or more of transmitting, receiving or communicating.
Claim 16: means for receiving, from a second UE, a codec mode request (CMR) for a new bit rate; means for transmitting, to a network device, a recommended bit rate (RBR) query in response to the new bit rate exceeding a current bit rate; means for receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query; and means for communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device.
Claim 17: means for receiving, from the network device, a recommendation for the new bit rate after the response timeout period expires; and means for communicating with the second UE using the new bit rate in response to receiving the recommendation for the new bit rate from the network device.
Claim 19: means for transmitting the RBR query immediately when a prohibit timer (PT) timer expires, or if the PT timer has not expired then waiting for the PT timer to expire.
Claim 20: means for transmitting the RBR query in response to a channel condition satisfying a threshold.
Claim 21: means for transmitting in response to a quantity of received CMRs, with a same bit rate, exceeding a threshold quantity of requests within a period of time.
The specification discloses that the means may include one or more components of the UE 120 described in connection with FIG. 2 (0052). For the means for receiving the CMR, the corresponding structure is the antenna 252, DEMOD/MOD 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, controller/processor 280 and memory 282 (0083). For the means for transmitting the RBR query, the corresponding structure is the antenna 252, DEMOD/MOD 254, TX MIMO processor 266, transmit processor 264, controller/processor 280 and memory 282 (0084), together with the algorithm of FIG. 7, blocks 702 and 704 (0074, 0076). For the means for communicating, the corresponding structure is the antenna 252, DEMOD/MOD 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, TX MIMO processor 266, transmit processor 264, controller/processor 280 and memory 282 (0085). For the means for transmitting recited in claim 19, the corresponding structure further includes the algorithm of FIG. 7, blocks 710 and 716 (0074, 0076, 0077). For the means for transmitting recited in claim 20, the corresponding structure further includes the algorithm of FIG. 7, block 712 (0074, 0076). For the means for transmitting recited in claim 21, the corresponding structure further includes the algorithm of FIG. 7, blocks 706 and 708 (0074, 0076).
The specification does not disclose corresponding structure for the means for receiving no response within a response timeout period recited in claim 16, for the response timeout expiry condition of the means for communicating recited in claim 16, or for the means for receiving a recommendation after the response timeout period expires recited in claim 17. The controller/processor 280 and memory 282 are a general purpose processor and memory, and the specification discloses no algorithm for measuring a response timeout period or for detecting its expiration. These limitations are addressed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 16, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “means for receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query, and means for communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device” recited in claim 16 and “means for receiving, from the network device, a recommendation for the new bit rate after the response timeout period expires” recited in claim 17 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The controller or processor 280 and memory 282 are a general purpose processor and memory, and the specification discloses no algorithm for measuring a response timeout period or for detecting its expiration, hence the specification is devoid of adequate structure and algorithm to perform the claimed function as a whole. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 recites receiving, from a terminating UE, an RBR query in response to the new bit rate exceeding a current bit rate, and refraining from transmitting, to the terminating UE, a response to the RBR query within a response timeout period after receiving the RBR query such that the originating UE uses the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device. The RBR query is recited as being received from the terminating UE, and the response that is withheld is recited as being withheld from the terminating UE. The clause that follows, however, recites the originating UE using the current bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query. The originating UE is not recited as transmitting the RBR query and is not recited as awaiting a response to it. It is therefore unclear which UE transmits the RBR query, which UE awaits the response, and which UE the response timeout period is measured at. The scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 11, 13-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query, and communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device. The specification as filed does not describe a response timeout period. The specification describes only that, if there is no response from the network, the UE uses the current bit rate (0028, 0073, 0085). The specification does not describe any period within which the response is awaited, and does not describe expiration of any such period as the condition for using the current bit rate. The timers described in the specification are the timer T_aud_ran, which the mobile originating UE starts after sending a codec mode request and which is unrelated to the RBR query (0069, 0070, 0071), and the bit rate query prohibit timer, which governs how frequently queries may be sent and not how long a response is awaited (0074, 0076, 0077). Neither is a period after transmitting the RBR query within which a response is awaited.
The claims as originally filed likewise do not describe a response timeout period. Original claims 3, 12 and 18 recited using the current bit rate in response to the first UE not receiving, from the network device, a response to transmitting the RBR query. The original claims conditioned the use of the current bit rate on non-receipt alone, and did not recite any period or the expiration of any period.
Claims 2, 11 and 17 recite receiving, from the network device, a recommendation for the new bit rate after the response timeout period expires. The specification does not describe a recommendation received after any period has expired. FIG. 8 describes an uplink rate query followed by a rate recommendation accepting the requested rate, with no period described between them (0079). Original claims 2, 11 and 17 recited using the new bit rate in response to the network device recommending the new bit rate, without reciting any period or its expiration.
Claim 7 recites refraining from transmitting, to the terminating UE, a response to the RBR query within a response timeout period after receiving the RBR query. The specification describes the network device transmitting a response to the RBR query (0042, 0089; FIG. 10, block 1006). The specification does not describe the network device refraining from transmitting a response, and does not describe any period within which the network device refrains. Original claim 7 recited transmitting, to the terminating UE, a response to the RBR query.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/036531 A1 herein WO in view of US 2019/0373501 A1 herein Chang.
Claim 1, WO discloses a method of wireless communication by a first user equipment (UE) (0001, Method), the method comprising:
receiving, from a second UE, a codec mode request (CMR) for a new bit rate (0061, UE sends an RTP codec mode request (CMR) to the peer UE; 0063, UE2 receives application signaling resulting in an increase of the media sender bitrate);
transmitting, to a network device, a recommended bit rate (RBR) query in response to the new bit rate exceeding a current bit rate (0063, UE2 may send an ANBRQ in its uplink to query the network whether the increased bitrate R2 can be supported; 0062, ANBRQ mapped to a Recommended bit rate query MAC CE).
WO may not explicitly disclose receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query; and communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device.
Chang discloses receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query (0032, base station configures the first timer to activate when the UE transmits a bitrate query; 0033, configuration specifies the events that trigger the first timer to activate, restart and stop, the duration the first timer runs once activated, and that the first timer is stopped whenever the UE receives a recommended bitrate from the base station; 0038, base station makes a bitrate recommendation upon receipt of the bitrate query; thus expiry of the first timer indicates no recommendation received within the duration after the query); and
communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device (0027, UE cannot autonomously decide which bitrate to use without permission from the base station; thus absent a recommendation before the first timer expires, the UE does not change to the new bitrate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO to include a timer started upon transmitting a bitrate query and stopped upon receiving a recommended bitrate, with bitrate changes requiring base station permission, as taught by Chang, so as to allow the base station to limit how often the UE transmits bitrate queries (0032).
Claim 2, WO in view of Chang discloses the method of claim 1. WO may not explicitly disclose receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query; communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device; receiving, from the network device, a recommendation for the new bit rate after the response timeout period expires; and communicating with the second UE using the new bit rate in response to receiving the recommendation for the new bit rate from the network device.
Chang discloses receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query (0032, first timer activated when the UE transmits a bitrate query; 0033, first timer stopped whenever the UE receives a recommended bitrate; 0038, recommendation made upon receipt of the query; thus expiry indicates no recommendation within the duration after the query);
communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device (0027, UE cannot autonomously decide which bitrate to use without permission from the base station; thus absent a recommendation, the UE does not change to the new bitrate);
receiving, from the network device, a recommendation for the new bit rate after the response timeout period expires (0032, UE prohibited from transmitting another bitrate query until the first timer expires; 0028, bitrate query may be a request for a specific rate based on a rate negotiation request from the second UE device; 0038, base station makes a bitrate recommendation upon receipt of the bitrate query; 0029, the recommendation may be a recommendation for a higher rate; thus a recommendation for the requested rate received after the first timer expires); and
communicating with the second UE using the new bit rate in response to receiving the recommendation for the new bit rate from the network device (0035, UE determines to implement (accept) the recommended bitrate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO to include a timer started upon transmitting a bitrate query and stopped upon receiving a recommended bitrate, with bitrate changes requiring base station permission, as taught by Chang, so as to allow the base station to limit how often the UE transmits bitrate queries (0032).
Claim 10, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
WO discloses an apparatus for wireless communication by a first user equipment (UE) (0053, UE}, at least one memory (00161, one or more memories}; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (same paragraph, one or more processors with memories coupled to the processor).
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 16, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
WO discloses an apparatus for wireless communication by a first user equipment (UE) (0053, UE}, means for receiving, means for transmitting, means for receiving, and means for communicating (00151, the means comprises at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code).
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over WO in view of Chang and further in view of US 2021/0329523 A1 herein Ranjan.
Claim 4, WO in view of Chang discloses the method of claim 1.
WO may not explicitly disclose receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query; and communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device.
Chang discloses receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query (0032, first timer activated when the UE transmits a bitrate query; 0033, first timer stopped whenever the UE receives a recommended bitrate; 0038, recommendation made upon receipt of the query; thus, expiry indicates no recommendation within the duration after the query); and
communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device (0027, UE cannot autonomously decide which bitrate to use without permission from the base station; thus, absent a recommendation, the UE does not change to the new bitrate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO to include a timer started upon transmitting a bitrate query and stopped upon receiving a recommended bitrate, with bitrate changes requiring base station permission, as taught by Chang, so as to allow the base station to limit how often the UE transmits bitrate queries (0032).
WO may not explicitly disclose transmitting the RBR query comprises transmitting the RBR query immediately when a prohibit timer (PT) timer expires, or if the PT timer has not expired then waiting for the PT timer to expire.
Ranjan discloses transmitting the RBR query comprises transmitting the RBR query immediately when a prohibit timer (PT) timer expires, or if the PT timer has not expired then waiting for the PT timer to expire (0062, determining whether to transmit the query message is further based on a prohibit timer indicating a time after expiration of which the query message may be transmitted, and taking action to transmit the recommended bit rate query includes waiting to transmit the recommended bit rate query until after expiration of the prohibit timer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO to include waiting to transmit the bit rate query until after expiration of a prohibit timer, as taught by Ranjan, so as to limit the UE from sending frequent queries (0041).
Claim 5, WO in view of Chang discloses the method of claim 1.
WO may not explicitly disclose receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query; and communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device.
Chang discloses receiving no response to the RBR query from the network device within a response timeout period after transmitting the RBR query (0032, first timer activated when the UE transmits a bitrate query; 0033, first timer stopped whenever the UE receives a recommended bitrate; 0038, recommendation made upon receipt of the query; thus expiry indicates no recommendation within the duration after the query); and
communicating with the second UE using the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device (0027, UE cannot autonomously decide which bitrate to use without permission from the base station; thus, absent a recommendation, the UE does not change to the new bitrate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO to include a timer started upon transmitting a bitrate query and stopped upon receiving a recommended bitrate, with bitrate changes requiring base station permission, as taught by Chang, so as to allow the base station to limit how often the UE transmits bitrate queries (0032).
WO may not explicitly disclose transmitting the RBR query comprises transmitting the RBR query in response to a channel condition satisfying a threshold.
Ranjan discloses transmitting the RBR query comprises transmitting the RBR query in response to a channel condition satisfying a threshold (0060, UE determines to transmit the query message to the base station based at least in part on detecting that the measured one or more channel quality metrics have improved by the threshold amount). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO to include transmitting the bit rate query when a measured channel quality metric has improved by a threshold amount, as taught by Ranjan, so as to base the decision to query on the actual channel condition (0047).
Claim 13, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 14, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim 19, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 20, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO in view of Chang and further in view of US 2012/0093008 A1 herein Diachina.
Claim 7, WO discloses a method of wireless communication by a network device (0001, Method), the method comprising:
transmitting, to an originating user equipment (UE), a recommended bit rate (RBR) for a new bit rate (0061, eNB signals a recommended bit rate to the UE, which uses it to initiate end-to-end rate adaptation toward the peer UE);
receiving, from a terminating UE, an RBR query in response to the new bit rate exceeding a current bit rate (0063, UE2 sends an ANBRQ to query the network whether the increased bitrate R2 can be supported).
WO may not explicitly disclose refraining from transmitting, to the terminating UE, a response to the RBR query within a response timeout period after receiving the RBR query such that the originating UE uses the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device.
Chang discloses such that the originating UE uses the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device (0032, first timer activated when the UE transmits a bitrate query; 0033, first timer stopped whenever the UE receives a recommended bitrate; 0027, UE cannot autonomously decide which bitrate to use without permission from the base station; thus absent a recommendation before the timer expires, the UE does not change to the new bitrate; the recitation of the UE's use of the current bit rate is a statement of intended result of the network device's step, MPEP 2111.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO to include a timer started upon transmitting a bitrate query and stopped upon receiving a recommended bitrate, with bitrate changes requiring base station permission, as taught by Chang, so as to allow the base station to limit how often the UE transmits bitrate queries (0032).
WO may not explicitly disclose refraining from transmitting, to the terminating UE, a response to the RBR query within a response timeout period after receiving the RBR query such that the originating UE uses the current bit rate instead of the new bit rate in response to the response timeout period expiring without receiving a response to the RBR query from the network device.
Diachina discloses refraining from transmitting, to the terminating UE, a response to the RBR query within a response timeout period after receiving the RBR query (0027, where the request load exceeds a certain threshold the node does not transmit an explicit response to the requesting terminals; 0008, terminal monitors for a predetermined monitoring window and receives neither an explicit grant nor an explicit reject within that window). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO to include withholding an explicit response to a request when the request load exceeds a threshold, as taught by Diachina, so as to defer requesting terminals from transmitting further requests during times of network congestion (0033).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190159071 A1 - Systems and methods for recommending a data rate on an uplink or downlink communication channel between the network node and a wireless device in a wireless communications system are provided. In one exemplary embodiment, a method performed by a wireless device (105, 200, 300, 400, 1100) for recommending a data rate on an uplink or downlink communication channel (107, 109) between the wireless device and a network node (101) in a wireless communications system (100) comprises determining (501, 1701) to request (113) that the network node recommend a data rate on the uplink or downlink communication channel for the wireless device. Further, the method includes generating a first information element (111) that indicates the request. Also, the first information element is sent via a protocol layer on the uplink communication channel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571) 272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 pm.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights