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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15-16, and 19-20, the applicant argued, “…The Examiner interprets step 802 as ‘determining that the target device is unreachable’ and step 810 as ‘discarding the message.’…Komandur only drains the data after determining that the mobile station is reachable based on the ACK (and that the retransmission timeout occurs)…” on pages 6-9.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In ¶¶45 and 64; figure 8 Komandur teaches storing the first message in a transmission queue prior to transmitting the first message to the target device (¶45: store data packet in memory prior to transmission to the mobile station); and discarding the first message from the transmission queue and refraining from retransmitting the first message to the target device responsive to determining that the target device is unreachable (¶¶45 and 64; figure 8: if the mobile station become unreachable, delay retransmission of the data packet, when the mobile station becomes reachable again determine retransmission timeout has occurred, and drain (discard) the stored packet).
Following the flow of Komandur figure 8, step 810 necessarily requires step 802. As such, the cited portions of Komandur disclose draining the stored data response to determining that the mobile station is unreachable. Komandur’s disclosure provides more specificity that the argued limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. US 2021/0409335 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhu”) in view of Komandur et al. US 2003/0137948 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Komandur”). Note: Zhu and Komandur were cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 August 2025.
As to claim 1, Zhu teaches a method for wireless communication performed by a wireless communication device, comprising:
transmitting a first message over a wireless channel to a target device;
listening for a response from the target device following the transmission of the first message;
determining that the target device is unreachable based at least in part on listening for a threshold period without receiving the response from the target device (¶94: transmit a message and wait for a timer duration where a response is expected, after the timer timeout the target device is unreachable); and
refraining from retransmitting the first message to the target device responsive to determining that the target device is unreachable (¶94: retransmit message before timeout and stop retransmission after timeout and target device declared unreachable).
Although Zhu teaches “A method…the target device; and refraining from…is unreachable,” Zhu does not explicitly disclose “storing the first…from the transmission queue”.
However, Komandur teaches storing the first message in a transmission queue prior to transmitting the first message to the target device (¶45: store data packet in memory prior to transmission to the mobile station); and
discarding the first message from the transmission queue and refraining from retransmitting the first message to the target device responsive to determining that the target device is unreachable (¶¶45 and 64; figure 8: if the mobile station become unreachable, delay retransmission of the data packet, when the mobile station becomes reachable again determine retransmission timeout has occurred, and drain (discard) the stored packet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Zhu by including “storing…queue” as taught by Komandur because it provides Zhu’s method with the enhanced capability of removing excess transmission (Komandur, ¶¶45 and 64).
As to claim 2, Zhu in view of Komandur teaches the method of claim 1. Zhu further teaches wherein the response comprises an acknowledgement (ACK) message indicating that the first message has been successfully received by the target device (¶¶88, 84, and 96).
As to claim 3, Zhu in view of Komandur teaches the method of claim 1. Zhu further teaches wherein the determining that the target device is unreachable comprises:
performing a number (N) of retransmissions of the first message over the threshold period (¶¶88, 84, and 96).
As to claim 5, Zhu in view of Komandur teaches the method of claim 1. Zhu further teaches further comprising:
receiving the first message from a host processor; and
notifying the host processor that the target device failed to receive the first message based on determining that the target device is unreachable (¶¶356-357).
As to claim 6, Zhu in view of Komandur teaches the method of claim 5. Zhu further teaches the notification to the host processor includes an indication that the target device is unreachable (¶¶356-357).
As to claim 9, Zhu in view of Komandur teaches the method of claim 1.
Komandur further teaches receiving a second message over the wireless channel from the target device after determining that the target device is unreachable; and
determining that the target device is reachable responsive to receiving the second message (¶¶45 and 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Zhu in view of Komandur by including “receiving…message” as further taught by Komandur for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Komandur, ¶¶45 and 64).
As to claim 10, Zhu in view of Komandur teaches the method of claim 9.
Komandur further teaches receiving, from a host processor, a third message for transmission to the target device; and
transmitting the third message to the target device based on determining that the target device is reachable (¶¶356-357).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Zhu in view of Komandur by including “receiving…reachable” as further taught by Komandur for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Komandur, ¶¶45 and 64).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 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.
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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights