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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12-17-2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 112(a) rejections of claims 4-5, 11-12 and 17-18 are withdrawn in view of the explanation; however, a new 112 rejection applies. Applicant’s explanation of modifying the TWT for a first-time duration when the first network condition [1308] is satisfied and only true, if step 1310 is not satisfied, TWT not torn down. Thereby, the disclosure of the claim does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without no TWT torn down, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). Dependent claims share the deficiency by virtue of dependency. Also, 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.
As to the 112 rejection of claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20 stands. Applicant’s response is problematic with the identification of the first server condition. Initially, the first server condition is equated to fig. 14, step 1410, but the explanation uses steps 1408 and 1410 and the outcomes 1412 and 1414 are inverted. Thereby, it is unclear what is erroneous the explanation or the claim. Please clarify.
Regarding the arguments directed to the newly amended limitations, please note that the newly amended limitations are not describing and/or modifying the device/method/medium in any measurable way, but describe a relationship to the condition which does not require any change to the device, method or medium. Additionally, the newly amended limitations were added as intended use [see MPEP 2111.02 II]. In the instant case the intended use of the claimed invention was evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference, but the intended use was of no significance to the structure. Thereby, the structure of Choi is capable of performing the intended use as recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-5, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without step 1310 not been satisfied, TWT not torn down, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Modifying the TWT for a first-time duration when the first network condition [1308] is satisfied and only true, if step 1310 is not satisfied, TWT not torn down. Thereby, the current outcome of the first network condition as claimed may not be true.
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 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. The claims limitations do not match figs. 13 and 14 nor the description found in par. 0088-0094. Please indicate where the support can be found.
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 4-7, 11-14 and 17-20 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. Since the claims limitations do not match figs. 13 and 14 nor the description found in par. 0088-0094, it is unclear the scope of the claims. Please clarify.
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 20200084102.
As to claim 1, Choi discloses a communication device [101] comprising (see par. 0022): a transceiver [190] configured to receive 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 service type; determine whether a condition associated with the TWT is satisfied, and modify the TWT based on the condition (see par. 0063), 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 does not use the words real-time service; however, discloses QoS service type such as VOIP type (see par. 0121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that VOIP is a real-time service, thereby, permitting a real-time conversation.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, they are the corresponding method and non-transitory computer readable medium claims of device claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 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 20200084102 in view Homchaudhuri 20200221381.
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.
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.
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.
Conclusion
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