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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 18-23, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US. Pub. No. 2006/0246936 A1; hereinafter “GROSS”) in view of Hernandez et al. (US 2017/0336850 A1).
Regarding claim 1, GROSS teaches an electronic device (see GROSS, fig. 3), comprising:
at least one processor (see GROSS, cl. 16); and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program that is executable by the at least one processor (see GROSS, cl. 16), the program including instructions for:
determining whether a network transmission status satisfies a first condition based on whether an obtained first packet error ratio is less than an error ratio threshold when data is transmitted at a first transmission rate and a first transmit power (see GROSS, fig. 6, 606, para. [0066]);
in response to determining that the network transmission status satisfies the first condition (see GROSS, fig. 6, 606, FER threshold), reducing the first transmit power to second transmit power in response to the first transmit power after the reducing being greater than a lower limit power of the first transmit power range (see GROSS, fig. 4, reducing 402, to 404, greater than floor 418, para. [0047]); and
in response to determining that the network transmission status does not satisfy the first condition (see GROSS, fig. 6, 606, above FER threshold, para. [0066]), adjusting network transmission parameters to enable the network transmission status to satisfy the first condition (see GROSS, fig. 6, 610, increase tx power, para. [0066]).
GROSS is silent to teaching that wherein the first transmit power range having an upper limit power and the lower limit power that each correspond to the first transmission rate, and the first transmit power being adjusted within the first transmit power range using an preset adjustment step size while the first transmission rate is maintained.
In the same field of endeavor, Hernandez teaches a device wherein the first transmit power range having an upper limit power and the lower limit power that each correspond to the first transmission rate ("for a particular transmission rate, the transmission power and transmission rate adjustment logic 25 may reduce the transmission power consumed" (¶[0030]). Hernandez further teaches that "a lookup table may provide particular power adjustment margins for particular transmission rates," including specific margins "used when particular Wi-Fi transmission rates are being used" (¶[0069]).), and the first transmit power being adjusted within the first transmit power range using an preset adjustment step size while the first transmission rate is maintained (The training block 152 evaluates "a step down in transmission power (e.g., 0.5 db, 1 dB, or 2 dB power back off)" (¶[0060]; see also ¶[0066]), and Hernandez claim 20 recites "the step comprises a 0.5 dB step, a 1 dB step, or a 2 dB step." Hernandez claim 1 recites adjusting "the transmission power down one step).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gross's FER-threshold-driven transmit power control so that the power range limits correspond to the transmission rate in use, and so that the transmit power is reduced in preset increments while that rate is maintained, as taught by Hernandez. Both references address closed-loop reduction of transmit power in wireless communications so as to avoid transmitting at more power than the link requires. Gross identifies the problem as "wasted transmit power 210" arising when the base station overshoots the actual power level needed (¶[0039], Fig. 2), and Hernandez identifies the same problem — communication power consumption is "a substantial amount of the total power consumption" and should be reduced "while retaining the quality of the electronic communication" (¶[0022], [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein whether the network transmission status satisfies the first condition is determined by using the following methods:
determining, when data is transmitted at the first transmission rate and the first transmit power, whether an obtained first packet error ratio is less than an error ratio threshold (see GROSS, fig. 6, 606);
in response to that the first packet error ratio is less than the error ratio threshold, determining whether the first transmit power is greater than the lower limit power of the first transmit power range corresponding to the first transmission rate (see GROSS, fig. 6, 612); and
in response to that the first transmit power is greater that the lower limit power of the first transmit power range, determining that the network transmission status satisfies the first condition (see GROSS, fig. 4, 403, para. [0047], fig. 6,614).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein whether the network transmission status satisfies the first condition is determined by using the following methods:
determining, when data is transmitted at the first transmission rate and the first transmit power, whether an obtained first packet error ratio is less than an error ratio threshold (see GROSS, fig. 6, 606);
in response to that the first packet error ratio is less than the error ratio threshold, determining whether the first transmit power is greater than the lower limit power of the first transmit power range corresponding to the first transmission rate (see GROSS, fig. 6, 612); and
in response to that the first transmit power is equal to the lower limit power of the first transmit power range, determining that the network transmission status does not satisfy the first condition (see GROSS, fig. 6, 612, YES, para. [0047,67]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the adjusting network transmission parameters comprises:
increasing the first transmission rate to a second transmission rate, and adjusting the first transmit power to third transmit power, wherein the third transmit power is upper limit power of a third transmit power range corresponding to the second transmission rate (Hernandez's transmission rate adjustment logic 112 includes processing logic 122 to "adjust the transmission rate down (block 114), adjust the transmission rate up (block 116), or maintain the current transmission rate (block 118)" (¶[0049], Fig. 8). The upward adjustment is condition-driven: a prediction of data throughput at upwardly and downwardly adjusted rates is derived from the sample throughputs and probability of successful communication, and "when the predicted data throughput of the upwardly adjusted transmission rate or the downwardly adjusted transmission rate is higher than the current data throughput, the transmission rate may be adjusted upward or downward, respectively" (¶[0041]). See also ¶[0032] — where errors are few, "it may be desirable to lower transmission power and/or increase the transmission rate.")
Regarding claim 5, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein whether the network transmission status satisfies the first condition is determined by using the following methods:
determining, when data is transmitted at the first transmission rate and the first transmit power, whether an obtained first packet error ratio is less than an error ratio threshold (see GROSS, fig. 6, 606);
in response to that the first packet error ratio is greater than the error ratio threshold, determining whether the first transmit power is less than an upper limit power of the first transmit power range corresponding to the first transmission rate (see GROSS, fig. 6, 608, fig. 4, 410, ceiling); and
in response to that the first transmit power is less than the upper limit power of the first transmit power range corresponding to the first transmission rate, determining that the network transmission status does not satisfy the first condition (see GROSS, fig. 6, 610, para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, wherein the adjusting network transmission parameters comprises: increasing the first transmit power to fourth transmit power (see GROSS, fig. 6, 610, para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein whether the network transmission status satisfies the first condition is determined by using the following methods:
determining, when data is transmitted at the first transmission rate and the first transmit power, whether an obtained first packet error ratio is less than an error ratio threshold (see GROSSS, fig. 6, 606);
in response to that the first packet error ratio is greater than the error ratio threshold, determining whether the first transmit power is less than an upper limit power of the first transmit power range corresponding to the first transmission rate (see GROSS, fig. 6, 608, power ceiling); and
in response to that the first transmit power is equal to the upper limit power of the first transmit power range corresponding to the first transmission rate, determining that the network transmission status does not satisfy the first condition (see GROSS, fig. 6, 608, 610, para. [0047,66]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the adjusting network transmission parameters comprises:
reducing the first transmission rate to a third transmission rate and adjusting the first transmit power to fifth transmit power, wherein the fifth transmit power is upper limit power of a fifth transmit power range corresponding to the third transmission rate (processing logic 122 adjusts the transmission rate down at block 114 (¶[0049], Figs. 8–11), where the predicted throughput at the downwardly adjusted rate exceeds the current throughput (¶[0041]). Hernandez expressly ties this to error conditions: "when there are a relatively high number of errors, the transmission power may be increased and/or the transmission rate may be decreased" (¶[0032]). Adjusting the transmit power to the upper limit of the range for the reduced rate. Hernandez ¶[0065], quoted above, applies to the downward branch as well — where the rate cannot be maintained at the reduced power because throughput is too low, logic 112 "adjusts the transmission rate down (block 114) ... returning to full transmission power and restarting the rate adjustment logic 112." See also ¶[0046]: when the current rate cannot be maintained at the reduced transmission power, "the process 70 may return to sampling at the maintained transmission rate with maintained transmission power (block 74)" — i.e., the reduced power is abandoned and the full power level restored before rate adaptation resumes).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to any one of claim 1, further comprising: starting, when detecting that a current moment reaches a start time of a detection period, to determine whether a current network transmission status satisfies the first condition (see GROSS, fig. 6, 602, start, para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 18, GROSS teaches an electronic device (see GROSS, fig. 3), comprising:
at least one processor (see GROSS, cl. 16); and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program that is executable by the at least one processor (see GROSS, cl. 16), the program including instructions for:
when data is transmitted at a first transmit power (see GROSS, fig. 2, power 208, para. [0038-39]), an obtained first packet error ratio is less than an error ratio threshold (see GROSS, fig. 6, 606, para. [0066]) and the first transmit power is greater than lower limit power of a transmit power range (see GROSS, fig. 6, 612, para. [0067]), reducing the first transmit power to second transmit power (see GROSS, fig. 6, 614, para. [0067]).
GROSS is silent to teaching that wherein the first transmit power range having an upper limit power and a lower limit power that each correspond to the first transmission rate, and the first transmit power being adjusted within the first transmit power range while the first transmission rate is maintained.
In the same field of endeavor, Hernandez teaches a device wherein the first transmit power range having an upper limit power and the lower limit power that each correspond to the first transmission rate ("for a particular transmission rate, the transmission power and transmission rate adjustment logic 25 may reduce the transmission power consumed" (¶[0030]). Hernandez further teaches that "a lookup table may provide particular power adjustment margins for particular transmission rates," including specific margins "used when particular Wi-Fi transmission rates are being used" (¶[0069])).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gross's FER-threshold-driven transmit power control so that the power range limits correspond to the transmission rate in use, and so that the transmit power is reduced in preset increments while that rate is maintained, as taught by Hernandez. Both references address closed-loop reduction of transmit power in wireless communications so as to avoid transmitting at more power than the link requires. Gross identifies the problem as "wasted transmit power 210" arising when the base station overshoots the actual power level needed (¶[0039], Fig. 2), and Hernandez identifies the same problem — communication power consumption is "a substantial amount of the total power consumption" and should be reduced "while retaining the quality of the electronic communication" (¶[0022], [0006]).
Regarding claims 19-23, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 4, 3, 6, 8 and 9, respectively.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the preset adjustment step size is 0.5 db (The training block 152 evaluates "a step down in transmission power (e.g., 0.5 db, 1 dB, or 2 dB power back off)" (¶[0060]; see also ¶[0066]), and Hernandez claim 20 recites "the step comprises a 0.5 dB step, a 1 dB step, or a 2 dB step." Hernandez claim 1 recites adjusting "the transmission power down one step)..
Regarding claim 30, the combination of GROSS and Hernandez teaches the electronic device according to claim 18, wherein the preset adjustment step size is 0.25 db (The training block 152 evaluates "a step down in transmission power (e.g., 0.5 db, 1 dB, or 2 dB power back off)" (¶[0060]; see also ¶[0066]), and Hernandez claim 20 recites "the step comprises a 0.5 dB step, a 1 dB step, or a 2 dB step." Hernandez claim 1 recites adjusting "the transmission power down one step).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 26, and 31 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 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.
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 WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights