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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 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
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kish (US-20110096712) in view of Kalkal, M., et al. "Neural Activity During Anticipation of Feared Social Situations in Social Anxiety Disorder." arXiv, 13 Sept. 2017, arxiv.org/abs/1709.04818
As to claim 1, 12, 20: Kish teaches a method comprising: determining, by an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD), an average rate for downlink (DL) traffic to a plurality of stations (STAs) on a link ([0033] Further, the effective unicast rate is based on the number of receiving nodes in the group); determining, by the AP MLD, a first index based on a number of the STAs on the link, an average length of non-unicast (UC) frames, the average rate and a predetermined parameter ([0033] The effective unicast rate depends on the total number of bits included in the unicast packets, including additional data packet overhead (e.g., additional bits in the unicast packet as compared to the multicast packet). The effective unicast rate also depends on computational time associated with converting the multicast packet into one or more unicast packets. The effective unicast rate is further based on the duration for reception and processing of ACK packets from the receiving nodes of the group 160. Further, the effective unicast rate is based on the number of receiving nodes in the group 160, because each additional receiving node in the group 160 proportionally lowers the effective unicast rate),
… ; determining, by the AP MLD, a second index based on the average length of non-UC frames and a basic rate for the STAs on the link ([0018] If the access point transmits the multicast or broadcast packet without conversion, the access point may determine a lowest common denominator data rate based on data rates for transmitting multicast or broadcast packets to the one or more nodes and transmits the multicast or broadcast packet to the group at the lowest common denominator rate); comparing, by the AP MLD, the first index and the second index ([0036] In step 250, the access point 120 determines if the effective unicast rate exceeds the lowest common denominator rate. ); and triggering, by the AP MLD, a dynamic multicast optimization (DMO) on the link based on the comparison of the first index and the second index ([0036] Accordingly, the effective unicast rate of 11.5 Mbps exceeds the lowest common denominator rate of 6 Mbps (i.e., the minimum allowable physical data rate for 802.11a), so the access point 120 will convert the multicast packet into one or more unicast packets in steps 255-275.).
Kish may not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined parameter is associated with at least one of a first amount of time indicating that UC frames are transmitted using single user (SU) transmission (TX) flow, or a second amount of time indicating that UC frames are transmitted using multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) or orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) TX flow. However, Kalkal teaches wherein the predetermined parameter is associated with at least one of a first amount of time indicating that UC frames are transmitted using single user (SU) transmission (TX) flow, or a second amount of time indicating that UC frames are transmitted (p.17-18 The throughput of 11ac for the traffic pattern in Figure 2(B) is given in Eq. 3) using multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) or orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) TX flow (p.8 the AP transmits over the DL to S stations simultaneously using MU-MIMO or OFDMA or combination).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement MIMO / OFDMA, taught by Kalkal, into the communication system, taught by Kish, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable higher throughput. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kalkal and Kish in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kish (US-20110096712), Kalkal in view of Lee (US-20130021997).
As to claim 2, 13: Kish teaches the method of claim 1.
Kish may not explicitly teach wherein the average rate comprises one of an arithmetic mean, a geometric mean or a harmonic mean determined based on a plurality of rates associated with the STAs and the number of the STAs. However, Lee teaches wherein the average rate comprises one of an arithmetic mean, a geometric mean or a harmonic mean determined based on a plurality of rates associated with the STAs and the number of the STAs ([0095]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement average of data rates, taught by Lee, into the communication system, taught by Kish, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and calculate the aggregate transmission time. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kish and Lee in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kish (US-20110096712), Kalkal in view of Pavon, Jd.P. & Choi, Sunghyun. (2003). Link adaptation strategy for IEEE 802.11 WLAN via received signal strength measurement. 1108 - 1113 vol.2. 10.1109/ICC.2003.1204534.
As to claim 5: Kish teaches the method of claim 1.
Kish may not explicitly teach wherein the first amount of time comprises: a second sum of short inter frame space (SIFS) and a time length for receiving an acknowledgement (ACK). However, Pavon teaches wherein the first amount of time comprises: a second sum of short inter frame space (SIFS) and a time length for receiving an acknowledgement (ACK) (p.3, footnote 5 According to IEEE Std. 802.11-1999, the ACK timeout is defined as SIFS time, plus ACK transmission time, plus a slot time.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a first amount of time, taught by Pavon, into the communications system, taught by Kish, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and make accurate DMO trigger decisions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kish and Pavon in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 10, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kish (US-20110096712), Kalkal in view of Jung (KR-20110012088-A).
As to claim 10, 19: Kish teaches the method of claim 1.
Kish may not explicitly teach wherein in response to the AP MLD is a multi-link single radio (MLSR) device and the link is an active link for transmitting a UC frame, the method further comprises: detecting, by the AP MLD, that the UC frame is missing for the STA on the active link; and performing, by the AP MLD, the DMO for the UC frame on the active link. However, Jung teaches wherein in response to the AP MLD is a multi-link single radio (MLSR) device and the link is an active link for transmitting a UC frame, the method further comprises: detecting, by the AP MLD, that the UC frame is missing for the STA on the active link; and performing, by the AP MLD, the DMO for the UC frame on the active link (switching from a multicast scheme to a unicast scheme and providing a service as the packet loss amount at the terminal exceeds a threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DMO for packet loss, taught by Jung, into the communication system, taught by Kish, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and ensure delivery. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Jung and Kish in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kish (US-20110096712), Kalkal in view of Monajemi (US-20210266137)
As to claim 11: Kish teaches the method of claim 10.
Kish may not explicitly teach further comprising: transmitting, by the AP MLD, a request to send (RTS) frame to determine whether the active link is still alive for the STA; and in response to receiving a response to the RTS frame, determining that the active link is still alive. However, Monajemi teaches further comprising: transmitting, by the AP MLD, a request to send (RTS) frame to determine whether the active link is still alive for the STA; and in response to receiving a response to the RTS frame, determining that the active link is still alive ([0033]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement RTS, taught by Monajemia, into the communication system, taught by Kish, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and verify the link. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Monajemi and Kish in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466