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) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, upon further review of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant argued and/or stated that “Erez does not mention the comparison between two link configurations (link plans). Furthermore, since Erez switches the link configuration to reduce the lane width for power saving (while the performance remains acceptable), the performance in Erez will inevitably decrease after the switch. This provides a teaching opposite to the present invention, which switches to a link plan with better performance”. (Emphasis Added).
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and/or interpretations because of the following reasons:
First, the Applicant’s claimed limitations at least in part merely recites “determining whether performance of another link plan is better than performance of the current link plan” without providing any further detail information or context as to the meaning of the statement “better performance”. In order to determine whether one thing has better performance than the other, certain criteria and/or parameters (e.g. better performance with regards to power consumption, data rate, latency, etc.) must be stated in the claim for one of ordinary skill in the art to readily understand bounds and scope of the Applicant’s invention. Therefore, without any further information, it’s unclear how the term “performance” is determined and/or what is considered “better performance”.
During patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations as stated above are broadly claimed, therefore, is fairly characterized as discussed below.
Secondly, Erez in fig. 4, pp. [0035], discussed the concept wherein the device selects a link configuration among the plurality of link configurations that prioritizes reduction of the lane width over downgrading the technology generation to meet a predetermined performance requirement of the serial data link. In some embodiments, the performance requirement may include data rate (bandwidth) and/or power consumption. In some examples, reducing lane width or downgrading technology generation can reduce power consumption as illustrated in Table 2. (Emphasis Added).
Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, by selecting a link configuration over the other plurality of link configuration based on meeting performance requirements in terms of data rate and/or power consumption, the Examiner has fairly characterized the selected link configuration based on power consumption and/or data rate as “better” than the others.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 14-16, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erez (US Publication No. 20190250930) in view of Hu et al. (US Publication No. 20220124855).
As to claims 1 and 14, Erez teaches a communication method of an electronic device and a circuitry of an electronic device (fig. 1, fig. 2), configured to perform the steps of: determining one link plan (link configuration) from a plurality link plans; using the determined link plan as a current link plan to configure a first link and a second link of the electronic device to communicate with another electronic device (fig. 1, fig. 4, #402, #404, using a current link (PCIe #110) configuration in a plurality of link configurations); determining whether the current link plan satisfies a first condition (fig. 1, fig. 4, #404, and pp0034, detects a condition for changing the link configuration of the serial data link. For example, the device may determine the condition based on whether the current PCIe configuration (e.g., lane width and technology generation) can meet the power consumption, performance (e.g., data transfer rate)); in response to the current link plan satisfying the first condition, determining whether performance of another link plan is better than performance of the current link plan (fig. 1, fig. 4, #406, and pp0035, selects a link configuration among the plurality of link configurations that prioritizes reduction of the lane width over downgrading the technology generation to meet a predetermined performance requirement of the serial data link. In some embodiments, the performance requirement may include data rate (bandwidth) and/or power consumption); and in response to the performance of another link plan being better than the performance of the current link plan, determining the another as the current link plan to configure the first link and the second link of the electronic device to communicate with the another electronic device (fig. 1, fig. 4, #406, #408, pp0035, selects a link configuration among the plurality of link configurations that prioritizes reduction of the lane width over downgrading the technology generation to meet a predetermined performance requirement of the serial data link. In some embodiments, the performance requirement may include data rate (bandwidth) and/or power consumption, and pp0036, device modifies the serial data link to use the selected link configuration). Although, Erez teaches that host 202 may be any system or device having a need for data storage or retrieval and a compatible interface for communicating with the SSD 204. For example, the host 202 may a computing device, a personal computer, a portable computer, a workstation, a server, a personal digital assistant, a digital camera, a digital phone, or the like (see fig. 2, and pp0024). Erez fails to explicitly teach wirelessly communicate with another device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hu teaches the concept of multi-link reconfiguration, wherein electronic device wirelessly communicate with another device (fig. 5, wireless communications and pp0054, tablet computer, wearable computing device (e.g., smart watch, eyeglasses, head wearable display), desktop computer, laptop computer, or implemented with distributed computing devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Erez with the teachings of Hu to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing links reconfiguration and using communication links to reduce latency in communication in a communication system (Hu, ppp0002).
As to claims 2 and 15, Erez in view of Hu teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, Erez fails to explicitly teach wherein the electronic device supports at least three bands, and the plurality of link plans comprises a plurality of combinations including two different bands.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hu teaches the concept of Multi-Link configuration wherein the electronic device supports at least three bands, and the plurality of link plans comprises a plurality of combinations including two different bands (fig. 5, fig. 7, fig. 8, multi-link configuration (mapping) using combinations of different bands i.e. 2.4GHZ, 5GHZ, and 6GHZ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Erez with the teachings of Hu to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing link configuration in a communication system to reduce latency and enhance user experience (Hu, pp0002, pp0004).
As to claims 3 and 16, Erez in view of Hu teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, Erez fails to explicitly teach wherein the electronic device supports at least a 2.4GHz band, a 5GHz band and a 6GHz band; and the plurality of link plans comprises a first link plan including the 2.4GHz band and the 5GHz, a second link plan including the 2.4GHz band and the 6GHz band, and a third link plan including the 5GHz and the 6GHz band.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hu teaches the concept of Multi-Link configuration wherein the electronic device supports at least a 2.4GHz band, a 5GHz band and a 6GHz band (fig. 5, fig. 7, fig. 8, multi-link configuration (mapping) using combinations of different bands i.e. 2.4GHZ, 5GHZ, and 6GHZ); and the plurality of link plans comprises a first link plan including the 2.4GHz band and the 5GHz, a second link plan including the 2.4GHz band and the 6GHz band, and a third link plan including the 5GHz and the 6GHz band (fig. 5, fig. 7, fig. 8, multi-link configuration (mapping) using combinations of different bands i.e. 2.4GHZ, 5GHZ, and 6GHZ, and pp0078, pp0079). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Erez with the teachings of Hu to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing link configuration in a communication system to reduce latency and enhance user experience (Hu, pp0002, pp0004).
As to claims 5 and 18, Erez in view of Hu teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Erez further teaches wherein the step of determining whether the performance of the another link plan is better than the performance of the current link plan comprises: determining whether a goodput or a throughput of the another link plan is better than the goodput or the throughput of the current link plan (fig. 1, fig. 4, #404, #406, selecting and/or changing link configuration that meets and/or sufficient to meet the performance requirement may include data rate (bandwidth) and/or power consumption, and pp0035, clm. 3).
Claim(s) 4 and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erez (US Publication No. 20190250930) in view of Hu et al. (US Publication No. 20220124855) and further in view of Seely (US Patent No. 10624041).
As to claims 4 and 17, Erez in view of Hu teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, Erez fails to explicitly teach wherein the step of determining whether the current link plan satisfies the first condition comprises: determining whether a packet error rate of the first link and the second link is greater than a threshold, or whether a goodput or a throughput of the first link and the second link is lower than a threshold.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Seely teaches the concept of channel plan selection wherein the step of determining whether the current link plan satisfies the first condition comprises: determining whether a packet error rate of the first link and the second link is greater than a threshold, or whether a goodput or a throughput of the first link and the second link is lower than a threshold (fig. 1, col. 13, lines 51-60, one or more thresholds may be used to estimate the packet error rate (PER) at different frequencies (channels) and for different transmission power levels. The relationship may be used to build and maintain a database that aids in the selection of channel(s) and/or channel plan(s) for use, and col. 21, lines 32-37, a packet error rate is estimated for each stream of I/Q samples. In the example of FIG. 8, the output 814 shows which thresholds were exceeded by the incoming maximum energy value. The more threshold that were exceeded, the noisier the RF spectrum). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Erez and Hu with the teachings of Seely to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably adapting or changing a channel plan with less radio frequency noise and/or interference in a communication system (Seely, col. 2, lines 42-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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.
Claims 10-13 are allowed.
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 OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645