DETAILED ACTION
This office action response the amendment application on 12/10/2025.
Claims 1-24 are presented for examination.
Notice of 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 Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 11 December, 2025. No Claims have been amended. Claims 1-24 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends (see pp. 8–9 of the Remarks) that U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0306777 in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0020331 fails to teach or suggest the limitation of “in a constrained operational state of the device: transmitting, from the device, a hold signal to the transmitter at least partially responsive to the device being in the constrained operational state,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At the outset, the Examiner notes that claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification, as required under established examination practice. Under such interpretation, the recited “constrained operational state” reasonably encompasses any condition in which the device is limited in its ability to process, receive, or forward data, including but not limited to reduced power conditions, limited processing capability, congestion, mobility-related degradation, or other operational constraints. The claims do not require a specific cause or threshold for such constraint, nor do they limit the mechanism by which the device determines or responds to such a state.
Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, Chin explicitly teaches the disputed limitation. Chin discloses, inter alia, that a user equipment (UE) transmits a hold signal to a network node (e.g., Node B) to temporarily suspend data transmission. As set forth in Chin’s Abstract, the UE sends a hold signal indicating that data transmission is to be placed on hold, and subsequently resumes transmission via a resume signal. Further, paragraph [0031] discloses that the UE stores data transmission hold/resume information, thereby evidencing operational awareness and control over transmission states.
More importantly, paragraphs [0035]–[0037] of Chin provide explicit teaching of the UE transmitting a hold signal responsive to operational conditions. Specifically, paragraph [0035] discloses that the UE indicates its desire to hold data transmission by sending uplink signaling bits (e.g., SS bits set to “11”), which serve as a hold command. Chin further clarifies that such indications may be used “for any purpose,” thereby broadly encompassing conditions where continued data reception would be undesirable or infeasible.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Chin does not limit the hold signal to arbitrary or user-initiated conditions; rather, paragraph [0037] reasonably suggests that the UE may issue the hold command in response to constrained conditions, such as when the UE moves away from the cell or experiences reduced signal quality or power limitations. Under BRI, such conditions fall squarely within the scope of a “constrained operational state.” Thus, the UE’s transmission of the hold signal in Chin is at least partially responsive to such constrained conditions.
Furthermore, Chin teaches a complete flow-control mechanism consistent with the claimed invention. In normal operation (i.e., permissive state), the UE receives and processes downlink data. In a constrained state, the UE transmits a hold signal to pause incoming data, thereby preventing buffer overflow, data loss, or processing inefficiency. The Node B, upon receiving the hold signal, suspends transmission and monitors for a resume command, as described in paragraph [0037]. This bidirectional signaling reflects a classic flow-control paradigm, aligning with the claimed “hold signal” functionality.
With respect to the combination of Martin and Chin, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Chin’s hold/resume signaling mechanism into Martin’s system to improve system reliability, manage resource constraints, and enhance overall communication efficiency. Chin explicitly recognizes the benefits of such signaling (see, e.g., paragraph [0006]), including reducing transmission inefficiencies and improving user experience. Applying this known technique to Martin would have predictably yielded improved flow control in constrained conditions, consistent with the rationale set forth in KSR.
Accordingly, when properly construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the combination of Martin and Chin teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation. The Applicant’s arguments rely on an unduly narrow interpretation of “constrained operational state” and improperly attempt to import limitations not recited in the claims. Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1, 4, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6-14, and 19-24 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US20190306777), hereinafter “D1”, in view of Chin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0020331), (“D2”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 1, D1 discloses a method, comprising:
in a permissive operational state of a device ([Fig. 6, item 114 as a relay node]) between a transmitter (Fig. 6, base station 102, includes a transmitter, receiver) and a receiver (Fig. 6, first UE 112, includes a transmitter, receiver) ([see, [0051], and Fig. 6, a communications path between the first UE 112 and the base station 102 via the second UE 114 acting as a relay node]):
receiving, at the device ([Fig. 6, item 114 as a relay node]), a signal from the transmitter ([see, [0051], receives signals on the downlink as represented by an arrow 126 so as to transmit signals to and receive signals from the base station 102]); and
transmitting, from the device, the signal to the receiver ([see, [0052], transmits signals on the uplink as shown by an arrow 124, and the downlink signals are shown by an arrow 122]).
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: in a constrained operational state of the device: transmitting, from the device, a hold signal to the transmitter at least partially responsive to the device being in the constrained operational state, wherein the hold signal (termination) instructs the transmitter to not transmit signals.
However, D2 discloses in a constrained operational state of the device: transmitting, from the device (the TD-SCDMA network), a hold signal to the transmitter (base station) at least partially responsive to the device being in the constrained operational state, wherein the hold signal (termination) instructs the transmitter to not transmit signals ([see, 0036-0039], and Fig. 6, the UE should tune away from the TD-SCDMA network, the UE sends uplink SS bits set to the "On Hold" command to the Node B, receipt by the Node B. In addition, the UE may send the "On Hold" command continuously to the Node B for several subframes. Moreover, the Node B receives the commands, the UE monitors to determine if the Node B has stopped the data transmission of the downlink DPCH (Dedicated Physical Channel)]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide hold on data transmission results improve system reliability, and enhance the user experience with mobile communications (D2, [0006]]).
As per Claim 2, D1 and D2 discloses the method of claim 1, and D1 appears to be silent to the instant claim, and D2 further discloses wherein the signal is received in a first Ethernet session at a first Ethernet port, wherein the signal is sent in a second Ethernet session at a second Ethernet port, and wherein transmitting the hold signal comprises terminating the first Ethernet session ([see, 0036-0039], and Fig. 6, the UE should tune away from the TD-SCDMA network, the UE sends uplink SS bits set to the "On Hold" command to the Node B, receipt by the Node B. In addition, the UE may send the "On Hold" command continuously to the Node B for several subframes. Moreover, the Node B receives the commands, the UE monitors to determine if the Node B has stopped the data transmission of the downlink DPCH (Dedicated Physical Channel)]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide hold on data transmission results improve system reliability, and enhance the user experience with mobile communications (D2, [0006]]).
As per Claim 4, D1 discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, at a device ([Fig. 6, item 114 as a relay node]) between a transmitter (Fig. 6, base station 102, includes a transmitter, receiver) and a receiver (Fig. 6, first UE 112, includes a transmitter), receiver ([see, [0051], and Fig. 6, a communications path between the first UE 112 and the base station 102 via the second UE 114 acting as a relay node]):
a signal from the transmitter ([see, [0051], receives signals on the downlink as represented by an arrow 126 so as to transmit signals to and receive signals from the base station 102]);
transmitting, from the device, the signal([see, [0052], transmits signals on the uplink as shown by an arrow 124, and the downlink signals are shown by an arrow 122]);
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: entering a constrained operational state of the device; and transmitting, from the device, at least partially responsive to entering the constrained operational state, a hold signal to the transmitter, wherein the hold signal instructs the transmitter to not transmit signals.
However, D2 discloses entering a constrained operational state of the device ([see, [0036-0039], the Node B has stopped the data transmission]); and transmitting, from the device, at least partially responsive to entering the constrained operational state, a hold signal to the transmitter, wherein the hold signal instructs the transmitter to not transmit signals ([see, 0037-0039], and Fig. 6, the UE should tune away from the TD-SCDMA network, the UE sends uplink SS bits set to the "On Hold" command to the Node B, receipt by the Node B. In addition, the UE may send the "On Hold" command continuously to the Node B for several subframes. Moreover, the Node B receives the commands, the UE monitors to determine if the Node B has stopped the data transmission of the downlink DPCH (Dedicated Physical Channel)]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide hold on data transmission results improve system reliability, and enhance the user experience with mobile communications (D2, [0006]]).
As per Claim 15, D1 discloses a device ([Fig. 6, item 114 as a relay node]), comprising:
a first port (interface) configured to be communicatively coupled to a first device (base station) (Fig. 6, base station 102, includes a transmitter, receiver);
a second port (interface) configured to be communicatively coupled to a second device (Fig. 6, first UE 112, includes a transmitter, receiver); and
logic configured to:
in a permissive operational state:
receive a signal from the first device ([see, [0051], receives signals on the downlink as represented by an arrow 126 so as to transmit signals to and receive signals from the base station 102 that accordance with the wireless access interface used]); and
transmit the signal to the second device ([see, [0052], transmits signals on the uplink as shown by an arrow 124, and the downlink signals are shown by an arrow 122 that accordance with the wireless access interface used]).
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: in a constrained operational state, transmit a hold signal to the first device at least partially responsive to the constrained operational state, wherein the hold signal instructs the first device to not transmit signals.
However, D2 discloses in a constrained operational state ([see, [0036-0039], the Node B has stopped the data transmission]),
transmit a hold signal to the first device at least partially responsive to the constrained operational state, wherein the hold signal instructs the first device to not transmit signals ([see, 0037-0039], and Fig. 6, the UE should tune away from the TD-SCDMA network, the UE sends uplink SS bits set to the "On Hold" command to the Node B, receipt by the Node B. In addition, the UE may send the "On Hold" command continuously to the Node B for several subframes. Moreover, the Node B receives the commands, the UE monitors to determine if the Node B has stopped the data transmission of the downlink DPCH (Dedicated Physical Channel)]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide hold on data transmission results improve system reliability, and enhance the user experience with mobile communications (D2, [0006]]).
Claims 8, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, and further in view of Chayat et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7930341 B1), (“D3”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 8, D1 and D2 discloses the method of claim 4, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the signal is received at a first serial port, wherein the signal is transmitted at a second serial port, and wherein transmitting the hold signal comprises transmitting the hold signal at the first serial port.
However, D3 discloses wherein the signal is received at a first serial port, wherein the signal is transmitted at a second serial port, and wherein transmitting the hold signal comprises transmitting the hold signal at the first serial port ([see, Col. 8, Lines 50-67, and Fig. 1, port 120 (corresponds to "first serial/ethernet port"), and in the Spec. communication device 106 (corresponds to "device" or relay) stops sending data to communication device 104, and sends a “pause” control signal to communication device 102, thereby causing communication device 102 to cease sending data to communication device 106. communication device 106 sends a pause control signal by sending one or more Ethernet PAUSE frames. Control channels 120 and 124, as they provide ethernet control signal, corresponds to "first serial/ethernet port" and "second serial/ethernet port"]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide hold on data transmission results benefit substantial cost of incorporating that improve a large amount of memory into the MAC in the integrated circuit (D3, Col. 1, lines 45-50]).
As per Claim 11, D1 and D2 discloses the method of claim 4, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the signal is received in a first Ethernet session at a first Ethernet port, wherein the signal is sent in a second Ethernet session at a second Ethernet port, and wherein transmitting the hold signal comprises terminating the first Ethernet session.
However, D3 discloses wherein the signal is received in a first Ethernet session at a first Ethernet port, wherein the signal is sent in a second Ethernet session at a second Ethernet port, and wherein transmitting the hold signal comprises terminating the first Ethernet session ([see, Col. 8, Lines 50-67, and Fig. 1, port 120 (corresponds to "first serial/ethernet port"), and in the Spec. communication device 106 (corresponds to "device" or relay) stops sending data to communication device 104, and sends a “pause” control signal to communication device 102, thereby causing communication device 102 to cease sending data to communication device 106. communication device 106 sends a pause control signal by sending one or more Ethernet PAUSE frames. Control channels 120 and 124, as they provide ethernet control signal, corresponds to "first serial/ethernet port" and "second serial/ethernet port"]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide hold on data transmission results benefit substantial cost of incorporating that improve a large amount of memory into the MAC in the integrated circuit (D3, Col. 1, lines 45-50]).
As per Claim 21, D1 and D2 discloses the device of claim 15, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the first port comprises a first Ethernet port, wherein the logic is configured to receive the signal in a first Ethernet session at the first Ethernet port, wherein the second port comprises a second Ethernet port, wherein the logic is configured to transmit the signal in a second Ethernet session at the second Ethernet port.
However, D3 discloses wherein the first port comprises a first Ethernet port, wherein the logic is configured to receive the signal in a first Ethernet session at the first Ethernet port, wherein the second port comprises a second Ethernet port, wherein the logic is configured to transmit the signal in a second Ethernet session at the second Ethernet port ([see, Col. 8, Lines 50-67, and Fig. 1, port 120 (corresponds to "first serial/ethernet port"), and in the Spec. communication device 106 (corresponds to "device" or relay) stops sending data to communication device 104, and sends a “pause” control signal to communication device 102, thereby causing communication device 102 to cease sending data to communication device 106. communication device 106 sends a pause control signal by sending one or more Ethernet PAUSE frames. Control channels 120 and 124, as they provide ethernet control signal, corresponds to "first serial/ethernet port" and "second serial/ethernet port"]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide hold on data transmission results benefit substantial cost of incorporating that improve a large amount of memory into the MAC in the integrated circuit (D3, Col. 1, lines 45-50]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, and further in view of Lin. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0324321), (“D4”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 17, D1 and D2 disclose the device of claim 16, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the hold signal comprises a voltage on a line of the first serial-communication port.
However, D4 discloses wherein the hold signal comprises a voltage on a line of the first serial-communication port ([see, [0008], a serial port configured to operate in the +5-volt powered mode or the +12-volt powered mode, the serial device may be damaged]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide remove power provided to the serial port results improve system consistency, and preventing damage to the device effectively (D4, [0040]]).
As per Claim 18, D1, D2 and D4 disclose the device of claim 17, and D1 further discloses wherein the line is a clear-to-send line ([see, [0029], line functions as a clear-to-send line CTS from the second processor 102 to the first processor 101]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU D BELETE whose telephone number is (571)272-3478. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm, Alt. Friday, and EDT.
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, JEONG, MOO R. can be reached on (571) 272-9617. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERHANU D BELETE/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/WUTCHUNG CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418