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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 17 and 30 have been amended. Claims 1-30 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 14, 16 and 29; they are not persuasive.
First argument,
Kurian and Abraham-alone or in any combination-have not been shown to teach or suggest all of the features of independent claims 1, 14, 16, and 29.
The Office Action alleges that Kurian is relevant to
measuring congestion on the wireless channel during each of a plurality of
NAN slots within a DW interval, the congestion measured during each NAN slot
being associated with an amount of time (Tbusy) that the wireless channel is busy during the respective NAN slot; and
dynamically updating the NDL schedule based on the congestion measured
during the plurality of NAN slots
as recited in previously-presented independent claim 1. Office Action, p. 4 (citing: Kurian
PNG
media_image1.png
17
8
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0129]-[0133]).
Kurian is generally directed to "[a] mechanism for wireless stations to learn preferred
channels of neighboring wireless stations and to schedule channel sequences within a time period based on the learned channels." Kurian, Abstract. At the portions cited by the Office Action, Kurian describes a tier-based bandwidth allocation system that transitions between predefined allocations based upon various measurements during discovery windows. See Kurian [0132]. For example, Kurian explains "a Tier 1 classification of the time slot allocation may correspond to 12.5% bandwidth for each radio" and "a second tier (e.g., Tier 2) may correspond to 25% bandwidth for each radio." Id. [0127]. At the cited portions, Kurian provides that "the time slot allocation may default (initialize) to state 2 (e.g., corresponding to Tier 2 906, 25% bandwidth allocation" and "if a low latency traffic peer-to-peer data transmission session is established, the peer devices may transition (e.g., transition 940) to state 5 (e.g., corresponding to Tier 5 912, 100% bandwidth allocation." Id. [0132]. Thus, Kurian merely discusses a set of five predefined bandwidth allocations and a peer device switching between the various predefined bandwidth allocations.
However, switching between different bandwidth allocations, as described in Kurian, does not teach or suggest "dynamically updating the NDL schedule based on the congestion measured during the plurality of NAN slots" as recited in independent claim 1. For example, the Office Action alleges that Kurian teaches the subject matter of independent claim 1 because Kurian allegedly describes "transitioning states between multiple connection states based on the traffic metric such as the CCA." Office Action, p. 4. However, the transitions described by Kurian merely refer to switching between different bandwidth allocations. See Kurian [0132]. The claimed NDL schedule indicates "a number of NAN slots, per discovery window (DW) interval, during which the NDL is available for data communications with the NAN device." Switching between predefined bandwidth allocations, as described in Kurian, cannot be relied
upon to teach or suggest "dynamically updating the NDL schedule" where the NDL scheduling is "indicating a number of NAN slots, per discovery window (DW) interval, during which the NDL is available for data communications with the NAN device" as recited in independent claim 1. That is, switching between predefined bandwidth allocations within one or more slots does not teach or suggest dynamically updating a schedule "indicating a number of NAN slots." Thus, Kurian does not teach or suggest "dynamically updating the NDL schedule based on the congestion measured during the plurality of NAN slots" as recited in independent claim 1.
The Office Action has not shown that Abraham and Qi overcome the deficiencies of Kurian. ….
Reply, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Before replying to the argument, please note that claim 1, does not define any mechanism for this “dynamically updating” for the NDL.
Kurian teaches the client station negotiating a NAN datapath window which is slot-based according to NAN protocols (Kurian [0122] “…Once the datapath negotiation window has been established and NAN datapath setup has been performed, the wireless stations may perform datapath synchronization to help ensure that the two stations stay synchronized with each other for communication. Finally, datapath resource allocation relates to two peer wireless stations communicating with each other regarding a common time slot and channel for communication. In other words, the two devices communicate with each other regarding which channel they should use and at which time slot, to help ensure proper communication between them….”). The datapath resource allocation may consist of time and frequency resources as illustrated in Fig 7 of Kurian.
Kurian further discusses transitioning between states according to a traffic metric, where each state may correspond to a slot configuration (Kurian [0127] “In some embodiments, a time slot allocation (e.g., for a given time period) may be classified into tiers. In some embodiments, a highest tier may correspond to a maximum bandwidth allocation and a minimum tier may correspond to a minimum bandwidth allocation. For example, as illustrated by FIG. 7, a first tier (e.g., Tier 1) may correspond to a minimum tier and/or minimum bandwidth allocation. As shown, Tier 1 for a first radio of a wireless device (e.g., such as client station 106) may include an allocation of 4 time slots for a first channel (e.g., social channel 6) in a first time block (e.g., that includes 8 time slots) and Tier 1 for a second radio of the wireless device may include 4 time slots for a second channel (e.g., social channel 149) in a second time block (e.g., that includes 8 time slots). Note that the remainder of the time slots and/or time blocks may not be allocated. Thus, as illustrated by the table of FIG. 8, a Tier 1 classification of the time slot allocation may correspond to 12.5% bandwidth for each radio. Further, a second tier (e.g., Tier 2) may correspond to 25% bandwidth for each radio. Thus, Tier 2 for the first radio may include an allocation of 8 time slots for the first channel in the first time block with the remaining time slots in the remaining time blocks of the time period unallocated. Similarly, Tier 2 for the second radio may include an allocation of 8 time slots for the second channel in the second time block with the remaining time slots in the other time blocks of the time period unallocated.”; Figs. 7 and 8).
Hence, Kurian teaches dynamically updating the NDL schedule, which is indicating a NAN slots, based on the congestion measured during the plurality of NAN slots, given that independent claims did not present any mechanism of this “dynamically updates”.
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 14-17, 25-26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurian et al. (US 20190357053 A1) hereinafter Kurian in view of Abraham et al. (US 20170317938 A1) hereinafter Abraham.
Regarding claim 1,
Kurian teaches a method for wireless communication by a wireless communication device (method implemented by a client station [0131]; Fig. 9), comprising: establishing a neighbor awareness networking (NAN) device link (NDL), over a wireless channel, with a NAN device (establishing a peer to peer connection between Wi-Fi client devices [0120]-[0122]); negotiating, with the NAN device, an NDL schedule indicating a number of NAN slots, per discovery window (DW) interval, during which the NDL is available for data communications with the NAN device (negotiating a NAN datapath window by allocating time slots per time period [0122]-[0126]); measuring congestion on the wireless channel during each of a plurality of NAN slots within a DW interval (clear channel assessment CCA for slots sampled within a time period [0125]-[0130]); and dynamically updating the NDL schedule based on the congestion measured during the plurality of NAN slots (transitioning states between multiple connection states based on the traffic metric such as the CCA [0130]-[0133]; Fig. 9).
Kurian does not explicitly teach the congestion being associated with an amount of time (Tbusy) that the wireless channel is busy during the respective NAN slot.
Abraham teaches the congestion being associated with an amount of time (Tbusy) that the wireless channel is busy during the respective NAN slot (channel unusability associated with the channel busy time [0090]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Abraham to the teachings of Kurian. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for scheduling NDL traffic to meet a desirable QoS (Abraham [0005]).
Regarding claim 2,
Kurian and Abraham teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Kurian does not explicitly teach measuring throughput on the NDL during each of the plurality of NAN slots, the throughput measured during each NAN slot being associated with an amount of time (Tload) that the wireless communication device communicates with the NAN device, over the NDL, during the respective NAN slot, the dynamic updating of the NDL schedule being further based on the throughput measured during the plurality of NAN slots.
Abraham teaches measuring throughput on the NDL during each of the plurality of NAN slots (measuring time used by NDL traffic for each time blocks during discovery interval [0084]-[0091]; Fig. 2), the throughput measured during each NAN slot being associated with an amount of time (Tload) that the wireless communication device communicates with the NAN device, over the NDL, during the respective NAN slot (measuring time used by NDL traffic for each block transmission blocks during discovery interval [0084]-[0091]; Fig. 2), the dynamic updating of the NDL schedule being further based on the throughput measured during the plurality of NAN slots (updating NDL schedule based on the time used by NDL traffic [0083]-[0091]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Abraham to the teachings of Kurian. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for scheduling NDL traffic to meet a desirable QoS (Abraham [0005]).
Regarding claim 10,
Kurian and Abraham teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Kurian does not explicitly teach the dynamic updating of the NDL schedule comprises: obtaining the number of NAN slots, per DW interval, during which the NDL is available for data communications with the NAN device (NAN datapath window obtained through allocating time slots per time period [0122]-[0126]).
Kurian does not explicitly teach updating of the NDL schedule based on a joint estimation metric associated with Tbusy and Tload.
Abraham teaches updating of the NDL schedule based on a joint estimation metric associated with Tbusy and Tload (updating the slot schedule based on a ratio of channel busy time and time used by NDL traffic [0085]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Abraham to the teachings of Kurian. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for scheduling NDL traffic to meet a desirable QoS (Abraham [0005]).
Regarding claim 11,
Kurian and Abraham teach all the features of claim 10, as outlined above.
Kurian further teaches wherein the number of NAN slots is obtained from a look-up table (LUT) that stores a plurality of values associated with the estimation metric and information indicating a respective number of NAN slots associated with each of the plurality of values (table storing multiple values associated with a metric and number of slots allocated [0127]; Fig. 8).
Kurian does not explicitly teach the metric used being a joint estimation metric.
Abraham teaches the metric used being a joint estimation metric (updating the slot schedule based on a ratio of channel busy time and time used by NDL traffic [0085]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Abraham to the teachings of Kurian. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for scheduling NDL traffic to meet a desirable QoS (Abraham [0005]).
Regarding claim 16,
Kurian teaches a method for wireless communication by a wireless communication device (method implemented by a client station [0131]; Fig. 9), comprising: establishing a neighbor awareness networking (NAN) device link (NDL) with a NAN device (establishing a peer to peer connection between Wi-Fi client devices [0120]-[0122]); negotiating, with the NAN device, an NDL schedule indicating a number of NAN slots, per discovery window (DW) interval, during which the NDL is available for data communications with the NAN device (negotiating a NAN datapath window by allocating time slots per time period [0122]-[0126]).
Kurian does not explicitly teach measuring throughput on the NDL during each of the plurality of NAN slots within a DW interval, the throughput measured during each NAN slot being associated with an amount of time (Tload) that the wireless communication device communicates with the NAN device, over the NDL, during the respective NAN slot; and dynamically updating the NDL schedule based on the throughput measured during the plurality of NAN slots.
Abraham teaches measuring throughput on the NDL during each of the plurality of NAN slots within a DW interval (measuring time used by NDL traffic for each time blocks during discovery interval [0084]-[0091]; Fig. 2), the throughput measured during each NAN slot being associated with an amount of time (Tload) that the wireless communication device communicates with the NAN device, over the NDL, during the respective NAN slot (measuring time used by NDL traffic for each block transmission blocks during discovery interval [0084]-[0091]; Fig. 2), and dynamically updating the NDL schedule based on the throughput measured during the plurality of NAN slots (updating NDL schedule based on the time used by NDL traffic [0083]-[0091]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Abraham to the teachings of Kurian. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for scheduling NDL traffic to meet a desirable QoS (Abraham [0005]).
Regarding claim 17,
Kurian and Abraham teach all the features of claim 16, as outlined above.
Kurian further teaches measuring congestion on the wireless channel during each of a plurality of NAN slots (clear channel assessment CCA for slots sampled within a time period [0125]-[0130]), the dynamic updating of the NDL schedule being further based on the congestion measured during the plurality of NAN slots (transitioning states between multiple connection states based on the traffic metric such as the CCA [0130]-[0133]; Fig. 9).
Kurian does not explicitly teach the congestion being associated with an amount of time (Tbusy) that the wireless channel is busy during the respective NAN slot.
Abraham teaches the congestion being associated with an amount of time (Tbusy) that the wireless channel is busy during the respective NAN slot (channel unusability associated with the channel busy time [0090]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Abraham to the teachings of Kurian. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for scheduling NDL traffic to meet a desirable QoS (Abraham [0005]).
Claims [14-15] “wireless communication device performing method of claim 1” (station with communication circuitry coupled to a processor which is coupled to a memory [0108]-[0109]; Fig. 3) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1-2] “wireless device communication method of claim 1”, respectively.
Claims [25-26] “wireless communication device method of claim 16” (station with communication circuitry coupled to a processor which is coupled to a memory [0108]-[0109]; Fig. 3) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [10-11] “wireless device communication method of claim 1”, respectively.
Claims [29-30] “wireless communication device performing method of claim 16” (station with communication circuitry coupled to a processor which is coupled to a memory [0108]-[0109]; Fig. 3) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [16-17] “wireless device communication method of claim 16”, respectively.
Claims 12-13 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurian in view of Abraham in further view of Qi et al (US 20180098183 A1) hereinafter Qi.
Regarding claim 12,
Kurian and Abraham teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Kurian and Abraham do not explicitly teach listening for incoming data from the NAN device during one or more NAN slots not indicated by the NDL schedule.
Qi teaches listening for incoming data from the NAN device during one or more NAN slots not indicated by the NDL schedule (listening to NAN availability slots which may be potential or conditional [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Qi to the teachings of Kurian and Abraham. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for dynamic scheduling of NAN slots (Qi [0081][0087]).
Regarding claim 13,
Kurian, Abraham, and Qi teach all the features of claim 12, as outlined above.
Kurian and Abraham do not explicitly teach adjusting the number of NAN slots, per DW interval, during which the NDL is available for data communications with the NAN device based on detecting incoming data from the NAN device during the one or more NAN slots not indicated by the NDL schedule.
Qi teaches adjusting the number of NAN slots, per DW interval, during which the NDL is available for data communications with the NAN device based on detecting incoming data from the NAN device during the one or more NAN slots not indicated by the NDL schedule (updating the NAN availability slots based on listening to the potential or conditional slots [0081]-[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Qi to the teachings of Kurian and Abraham. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for dynamic scheduling of NAN slots (Qi [0087]).
Claims [27-28] “wireless communication device performing method of claim 16” (station with communication circuitry coupled to a processor which is coupled to a memory [0108]-[0109]; Fig. 3) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [12-13] “wireless device communication method of claim 16”, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 18-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
The reason for allowing claims 3, 7, 18, and 22 is as follows: Kurian and Abraham teach updating the NAN slot configuration based on measured metrics. Kurian teaches dynamically updating of the NDL schedule based on a congestion metric ([0125]-[0133]; Figs. 8-9). Kurian further teaches adjusting the number of NAN slots, per DW, during which the NDL is available for data communications with the NAN device ([0127]; Fig.8).
Abraham teaches the dynamic scheduling being further based on throughput ([0083]-[0091]). However, neither Kurian nor Abraham teach that the updating is based on a covariance of the congestion and the throughput metrics or the standard deviation of a throughput metric.
The same reasoning applies to equivalent claims 18 and 22 which correspond to the method of claim 16. Claims 4-5, 8-9, 17-21, and 23-24 are objected to based on their dependency on the independent claims. However, they contain the allowable subject matter in claims 3, 7, 18, and 22.
None of the prior art teach or fairly suggest these limitations in combination with the other limitation of Claim(s) 3, 7, 18, and 22. Although the other limitations are used in the art, none of the prior art of record teach or provide motivation to combine to reach a similar result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465