DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Meier fails to disclose or suggest at least the features of "replacing, after the transmitting the first information, a second queue having a second plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of nodes to transmit second information of a second priority with a third queue having a third plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of nodes to transmit third information of a third priority, the third priority being higher than the second priority" (see applicant’s remarks pgs. 6-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Previously cited Fig. 4b shows a scenario where “In a first communication cycle 426, four communication participants transmit their respective data packets 418, 420, 422, 424 one after the other. The data packet 424 may have a higher priority than the remaining data packets 418, 420, 422” (see ¶ [0058]). Therefore, Meier does read upon applicant’s claimed feature replacing, after the transmitting the first information, a second queue having a second plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of nodes to transmit second information of a second priority with a third queue having a third plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of nodes to transmit third information of a third priority, the third priority being higher than the second priority. Examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1-4, 9-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0322180 A1 by Meier et al. (hereafter referred to as Meier).
Regarding claim 1, Meier teaches A method of communication in a network (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 4b), comprising:
providing a first queue having a first plurality of transmission opportunities for a plurality of nodes to transmit first information of a first priority (see at least queues of fig. 5, 502, 504, 506 and ¶ [0059]: “Fig. 5 is an embodiment of a system 500 with a first communication participant 202, whose MAC component 212 provides high-priority 502, medium priority 504 and low priority 506 data packets to a PHY component 214.”);
granting a first permission to at least a first subset of the plurality of nodes to transmit at least a first portion of the first information of the first priority (see at least fig.4, ¶ [0057]; "Fig. 4a shows an example of a transmission protocol 400 with data packets of different priority. For example, a data packet 402 of the first communication participant has a low priority and a data packet 404 of the second communication participant has a highest priority. In particular, here the highest priority is higher than the priorities of the data packets to be transmitted by the communication participants #3, #4 and #1. Thus, in a communication cycle 406, the further communication participants suspend transmitting their data packets, so that the second communication participant may immediately transmit a further important high-priority data packet 408"); and
replacing, after the transmitting the first information, a second queue having a second plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of nodes to transmit second information of a second priority with a third queue having a third plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of nodes to transmit third information of a third priority, the third priority being higher than the second priority (see at least fig. 4 and fig. 4b and ¶ [0057]: "In a subsequent transmission cycle 410, a data packet 412 of the second communication participant has a low priority. It is determined at least by the third communication participant. Since the priority of the third communication participant is now as high as that of the second communication participant, the third communication participant transmits a data packet 414 in the transmission cycle 410").
Regarding claim 2, Meier teaches the method of claim 1.
In addition, Meier teaches further comprises granting a second permission to at least a second subset of the plurality of nodes to transmit at least a second portion of the third information of the third priority (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, 4b and ¶ [0056]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Meier teaches the method of claim 1.
In addition, Meier teaches wherein granting the first permission to the first subset of the plurality of nodes to transmit comprises: granting the first permission to a first node of the at least the first subset to transmit a first plurality of bits of the first information; and granting the first permission to a second node of the at least the second subset to transmit a second plurality of bits of the first information (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, 4b and ¶ [0056]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Meier teaches the method of claim 1.
In addition, Meier teaches wherein granting the first permission to the first subset of the plurality of nodes to transmit comprises: granting the first permission to a first node of the at least the first subset to transmit a first plurality of bits of the first information; and refraining from granting the first permission to remaining nodes of the at least the first subset set to transmit remaining bits of the first information (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, 4b and ¶ [0056]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Meier teaches the method of claim 1.
In addition, Meier teaches further comprises providing a beacon resource between the first plurality of transmission opportunities and the third plurality of transmission opportunities (see at least ¶ [0006]; the PLCA which includes per default said beacon).
Regarding claim 10, Meier teaches a controller of an end node, comprising:
one or more memories including instructions; and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions to:
provide a first queue having a first plurality of transmission opportunities for a plurality of end nodes to transmit first information of a first priority (see at least queues of fig. 5, 502, 504, 506 and ¶ [0059]: “Fig. 5 is an embodiment of a system 500 with a first communication participant 202, whose MAC component 212 provides high-priority 502, medium priority 504 and low priority 506 data packets to a PHY component 214”);
grant a first permission to at least a first subset of the plurality of end nodes to transmit at least a first portion of the first information of the first priority; and
replace, after the transmitting the first information, a second queue having a second plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of end nodes to transmit second information of a second priority with a third queue having a third plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of end nodes to transmit third information of a third priority, the third priority being higher than the second priority (see at least fig. 4 and fig. 4b and ¶ [0057]: "In a subsequent transmission cycle 410, a data packet 412 of the second communication participant has a low priority. It is determined at least by the third communication participant. Since the priority of the third communication participant is now as high as that of the second communication participant, the third communication participant transmits a data packet 414 in the transmission cycle 410").
Regarding claim 11, Meier teaches the controller of claim 10.
In addition, Meier teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to grant a second permission to at least a second subset of the plurality of end nodes to transmit at least a second portion of the third information of the third priority (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, 4b and ¶ [0056]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 12, Meier teaches the controller of claim 10.
In addition, Meier teaches wherein granting the first permission to the first subset of the plurality of end nodes to transmit comprises: granting the first permission to a first node of the at least the first subset to transmit a first plurality of bits of the first information; and granting the first permission to a second node of the at least the second subset to transmit a second plurality of bits of the first information (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, 4b and ¶ [0056]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Meier teaches the controller of claim 10.
In addition, Meier teaches wherein granting the first permission to the first subset of the plurality of end nodes to transmit comprises: granting the first permission to a first node of the at least the first subset to transmit a first plurality of bits of the first information; and refraining from granting the first permission to remaining end nodes of the at least the first subset set to transmit remaining bits of the first information (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, 4b and ¶ [0056]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 18, Meier teaches the controller of claim 10.
In addition, Meier teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide a beacon resource between the first plurality of transmission opportunities and the third plurality of transmission opportunities (see at least ¶ [0006]; the PLCA which includes per default said beacon).
Regarding claim 19, Meier teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that, when executed by one or more processors of a controller of an end node, cause the one or more processors to:
provide a first queue having a first plurality of transmission opportunities for a plurality of end nodes to transmit first information of a first priority (see at least queues of fig. 5, 502, 504, 506 and ¶ [0059]: “Fig. 5 is an embodiment of a system 500 with a first communication participant 202, whose MAC component 212 provides high-priority 502, medium priority 504 and low priority 506 data packets to a PHY component 214.”);
grant a first permission to at least a first subset of the plurality of end nodes to transmit at least a first portion of the first information of the first priority (see at least fig.4, ¶ [0057]; "Fig. 4a shows an example of a transmission protocol 400 with data packets of different priority. For example, a data packet 402 of the first communication participant has a low priority and a data packet 404 of the second communication participant has a highest priority. In particular, here the highest priority is higher than the priorities of the data packets to be transmitted by the communication participants #3, #4 and #1. Thus, in a communication cycle 406, the further communication participants suspend transmitting their data packets, so that the second communication participant may immediately transmit a further important high-priority data packet 408."); and
replace, after the transmitting the first information, a second queue having a second plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of end nodes to transmit second information of a second priority with a third queue having a third plurality of transmission opportunities for the plurality of end nodes to transmit third information of a third priority, the third priority being higher than the second priority (see at least fig. 4 and fig. 4b and ¶ [0057]: "In a subsequent transmission cycle 410, a data packet 412 of the second communication participant has a low priority. It is determined at least by the third communication participant. Since the priority of the third communication participant is now as high as that of the second communication participant, the third communication participant transmits a data packet 414 in the transmission cycle 410").
Regarding claim 20, Meier teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19.
In addition, Meier teaches further comprising instructions for granting a second permission to at least a second subset of the plurality of end nodes to transmit at least a second portion of the third information of the third priority (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 4b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 non-obviousness.
10. Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, in view of US 2009/0168793 A1 by Fox et al. (hereafter referred to as Fox).
Regarding claim 5, Meier teaches the method of claim 4.
Meier does not appear to specifically disclose wherein replacing the second queue comprises replacing the second queue after the granting the first permission to the first node.
In the same field of endeavor, Fox teaches wherein replacing the second queue comprises replacing the second queue after the granting the first permission to the first node (see at least [0050]-[0053]; “When the mobile terminal 1 receives from the network core 12 the grant of permission to send data in the uplink, the terminal 1 transmits data from each of the queues in order of priority and sends packets within the guaranteed bit rate for that queue on receipt of the grant.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the permission taught by Meier with the permission taught by Fox in order to provide improved handling of queues of data for a mobile terminal with a telecommunications network (Fox ¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 14, Meier teaches the controller of claim 13.
Meier does not appear to specifically disclose wherein replacing the second queue comprises replacing the second queue after the granting the first permission to the first node.
In the same field of endeavor, Fox teaches wherein replacing the second queue comprises replacing the second queue after the granting the first permission to the first node (see at least [0050]-[0053]; “When the mobile terminal 1 receives from the network core 12 the grant of permission to send data in the uplink, the terminal 1 transmits data from each of the queues in order of priority and sends packets within the guaranteed bit rate for that queue on receipt of the grant.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the permission taught by Meier with the permission taught by Fox in order to provide improved handling of queues of data for a mobile terminal with a telecommunications network (Fox ¶ [0009]).
11. Claim(s) 6-8 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier in view of Fox as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, in view of US 6,708,198 B1 by Simmons et al. (hereafter referred to as Simmons).
Regarding claim 6, Meier in view of Fox teaches the method of claim 5.
Meier in view of Fox does not appear to specifically teach further comprises granting a second permission to at least a second subset of the plurality of nodes to transmit at least a second portion of the third information of the third priority.
In the same field of endeavor, Simmons teaches further comprises granting a second permission to at least a second subset of the plurality of nodes to transmit at least a second portion of the third information of the third priority (see at least Fig. 5 (512, 514, 516, 518); convert queue requests granted permission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the permissions taught by Meier and Fox with the permissions taught by Simmons in order to control access to resources.
Regarding claim 7, Meier in view of Fox and Simmons teaches the method of claim 6. In the obvious combination, Simmons teaches further comprises providing a fourth queue having a fourth plurality of transmission opportunities for a second node of the at least the first subset to transmit a second plurality of bits of the first information (see at least Fig. 5 (512, 514, 516, 518); convert queue requests granted permission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the permissions taught by Meier and Fox with the permissions taught by Simmons in order to control access to resources.
Regarding claim 8, Meier in view of Fox and Simmons teaches the method of claim 7. In addition, Simmons further comprises granting a third permission to the second node to transmit the second plurality of bits of the first information (see at least Fig. 5 (512, 514, 516, 518); convert queue requests granted permission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the permissions taught by Meier and Fox with the permissions taught by Simmons in order to control access to resources.
Regarding claim 15, Meier in view of Fox teaches the controller of claim 14.
Meier in view of Fox does not appear to specifically teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to grant a second permission to at least a second subset of the plurality of end nodes to transmit at least a second portion of the third information of the third priority.
In the same field of endeavor, Simmons teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to grant a second permission to at least a second subset of the plurality of end nodes to transmit at least a second portion of the third information of the third priority (see at least Fig. 5 (512, 514, 516, 518); convert queue requests granted permission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the permissions taught by Meier and Fox with the permissions taught by Simmons in order to control access to resources.
Regarding claim 16, Meier in view of Fox and Simmons teaches the controller of claim 15. In the obvious combination, Simmons teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide a fourth queue having a fourth plurality of transmission opportunities for a second node of the at least the first subset to transmit a second plurality of bits of the first information (see at least Fig. 5 (512, 514, 516, 518); convert queue requests granted permission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the permissions taught by Meier and Fox with the permissions taught by Simmons in order to control access to resources.
Regarding claim 17, Meier in view of Fox and Simmons teaches the controller of claim 16. In addition, Simmons teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to grant a third permission to the second node to transmit the second plurality of bits of the first information (see at least Fig. 5 (512, 514, 516, 518); convert queue requests granted permission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the permissions taught by Meier and Fox with the permissions taught by Simmons in order to control access to resources.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4. 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 at 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights