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
Most of the 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, the rejection for claims 5, 7 and equivalents, stands. Please note that parent claims such as 4 require the second condition not satisfied, but for dependent claim 5 now the second condition satisfied. This is not further defining, but the opposite condition. Applicant may combine the claims to make it clear that it is a selection, or amend the claim to include the determinations and change the dependency.
Regarding the rest of the arguments, please see below the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4, 11 and 17 require the second network condition to be negative, but claims 5, 12 and 18 require the second condition to be positive; thereby, removing limitation from its parent claim and creating an improper depending claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 6, 13 and 19 require the first server condition to be satisfied, but claims 7, 14 and 20 the first server condition to be not satisfied; thereby, removing limitations from its parent claim and creating an improper depending claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1-3, 8-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 20200084102 in view Homchaudhuri 20200221381.
As to claim 1, Choi discloses a communication device [101] comprising (see par. 0022): a transceiver [190] configured to receive, from a network entity, information including packets associated with a target wake time (TWT) (see par. 0023); and a processor [120] operably coupled with the transceiver (see par. 0022-0023), the processor configured to:
determine a network service type based on the packets, and when the determined network service type is a QoS/real-time service type [VOIP] (see par. 0121);
determine, based on a time window [inherent for latency], whether a downlink packet time for the real-time service type is an abnormal downlink packet time based on a maximum downlink inter-packet time [latency], identify the network entity [service] as an abnormal network entity [service] based on a determination that the downlink inter-packet time is the abnormal downlink packet time, and modify the TWT based on the determination that the downlink inter-packet time is the abnormal downlink inter-packet time (see par. 0063, 0068), wherein the condition is associated with a downlink inter-packet time identified based on a time difference between arrival times of two consecutive packets in the packets, the downlink inter-packet time being used to detect an abnormal operation of a network entity associated with the network service type [the condition is inherently associated in the time domain]. Choi fails to disclose compare a downlink “inter-packet time” [specification: inter-packet time here is defined as the difference of the arrival time between two packets at the STA]. In an analogous art, Homchaudhuri discloses a downlink “inter-packet time” [jitter] at the communication device (see par. 0086-0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of adjusting the network setting for congestion and delay; thereby improving communication experience.
As to claims 2-3, Choi discloses the communication device of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the TWT has been negotiated between the communication device and another communication device; and when the TWT has been negotiated between the communication device and the other communication device, compare the current configuration for the service (see par. 0121). Choi fails to disclose compare a downlink “inter-packet time” at the communication device with a threshold time that is obtained based on a subservice type and a congestion level; however, it is equated to wait time and it is noted that the comparison is not used for claim 2. In an analogous art, Homchaudhuri discloses a downlink “inter-packet time” [jitter] at the communication device with a threshold time that is obtained based on a subservice type and a congestion level, wherein when the downlink inter-packet time is greater than the threshold time, the processor is configured to modify TWT parameters negotiated between the communication device and the other communication device (see par. 0086-0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of adjusting the network setting for congestion and delay; thereby improving communication experience.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 15-16, they are the corresponding method and non-transitory computer readable medium claims of device claim 1-3. Therefore, claims 8-10 and 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view Homchaudhuri and further in view of Attar 20060146721.
As to claims 2-3, Choi discloses the communication device of Claim 1, wherein to determine whether the condition associated with the TWT is satisfied, the processor is configured to: determine whether the TWT has been negotiated between the communication device and another communication device; and when the TWT has been negotiated between the communication device and the other communication device, compare the current configuration for the service (see par. 0121). Choi fails to disclose compare a downlink “inter-packet time” at the communication device with a threshold time that is obtained based on a subservice type and a congestion level; however, it is equated to wait time and it is noted that the comparison is not used for claim 2. In an analogous art, Homchaudhuri discloses a downlink “inter-packet time” [jitter] at the communication device with a threshold time that is obtained based on a subservice type and a congestion level, wherein when the downlink inter-packet time is greater than the threshold time, the processor is configured to modify TWT parameters negotiated between the communication device and the other communication device (see par. 0086-0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of adjusting the network setting for congestion and delay; thereby improving communication experience. If it is going to be interpreted that the downlink inter-packet time is identified as a step based on a time difference between arrival times of two consecutive packets in the packets, then Attar discloses that the jitter is time variation between received successive packets (see par. 0075). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure jitter of two consecutive packets for enhanced precision of the measurement of congestion and delay; thereby improving communication experience.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 16, they are the corresponding method and non-transitory computer readable medium claims of device claim 2-3. Therefore, claims 9-10 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of all claimed limitations has not been found nor have been fairly suggested in the prior art search.
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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached on (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
