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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
AS to claim 1: It is unclear where in the recited “network system …” the recited steps (“receiving …”, “determining …”, “setting …”) are being performed or taking place. It would appear that the steps are being performed at the “access point”. Clarification is required.
AS to claim 8:
(a)It is unclear where in the recited “network system …” the recited steps (“determining …”, “transmitting …”) are being performed or taking place. It would appear that the steps are being performed at the “one or more stations”. Clarification is required.
(b)There are two instances of “an access point”. It is unclear whether these are the same “access point”, or different “access points”. Clarification is required.
AS to claim 14:
(a)It is unclear where in the recited “network system …” the recited “module”, “transceiver” and “controller” are situated. It would appear that these recited elements are situated in or associated with the “access point”. Clarification is required.
(b)There are two instances of “one or more stations”, i.e., in the recitations “linked to one or more stations” and “receiving signals from one or more stations”. It is unclear whether these are the same “one or more stations”, or different “one or more stations”. Clarification is required.
AS to claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-20: these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite parent claims, and further because they do not further clarify or obviate the indefiniteness issues identified in their respective parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14,16,18,1,3,5,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2022/194463 A1 to Ljung (cited in Applicant’s IDS).
As to claim 14, Ljung discloses a module for link adaptation in a network system comprising an access point linked to one or more stations through one or more links (Fig. 1, page 6, disclosing 400 [“access point”] and 300/300A [“stations”] and 10/10A [“links”], the module comprising (Fig. 1, 400 [access point], disclosing an access point, teaching transceivers, controllers and processors, to a phosita):
a transceiver for sending and receiving signals from one or more stations (Fig. 1, 400 [access point], disclosing an access point, teaching transceivers, controllers and processors, to a phosita);
a controller for: receiving QPLA parameters from the one or more stations, the QPLA parameters comprising a data rate requirement, a PER requirement, and a performance preference (page 6, line 24 – page 7, line 10, Fig. 2, page 7, lines 18 - page 8, line 25, “300 transmits … to the second wireless node 400, information indicative of a time limited performance requirement of an upper layer” in 508, such information being embodied by “data rate”, “packet loss ratio [teaching “PER”]”, latency indication, jitter, teaching “performance preference”, where such “time limited performance requirement” is used to determine “scheduling of UL data and handling of ratio link” in step 510 [page 9], teaching a broadest reasonable interpretation bRI embodiment of QPLA; further see Figs. 3-5, page 13, disclosing “the second wireless node may configure radio channel configurations to a specific radio channel configuration to accommodate to the time-limited performance requirement indicate din the information of S102”, further teaching QplA); determining a link adaptation for the one or more stations based on the QPLA parameters; and setting the link adaptation for the one or more stations (see, e.g., Fig. 2-5, and discussion above, further see page 13: “the second wireless node may configure radio channel configurations to a specific radio channel configuration to accommodate to the time-limited performance requirement indicate din the information of S102”).
As to claim 16, Ljung discloses the module as in the parent claim 14.
Ljung further discloses wherein the performance preference comprises a data rate preference and a PER preference. (page 6, line 24 – page 7, line 10, Fig. 2, page 7, lines 18 - page 8, line 25, “300 transmits … to the second wireless node 400, information indicative of a time limited performance requirement of an upper layer” in 508, such information being embodied by “data rate” [“data rate preference”], “packet loss ratio [teaching “PER preference”]”, latency indication, jitter, teaching “performance preference”, where such “time limited performance requirement” is used to determine “scheduling of UL data and handling of ratio link” in step 510 [page 9])
As to claim 18, Ljung discloses the module as in the parent claim 14.
Ljung further discloses further for assigning a conventional link adaptation for one or more stations not having provided QPLA parameters. (page 2, page 6, line 24 – page 7, line 10, Fig. 2, page 7, lines 18 - page 8, line 25, “300 transmits … to the second wireless node 400, information indicative of a time limited performance requirement of an upper layer” in 508, where such “time limited performance requirement” is used to determine “scheduling of UL data and handling of ratio link” in step 510 [page 9], see Figs. 2-5, teaching that the link adaption is in response to the “time limited performance requirement” sent from the terminal 300, teaching that when the time limit expires, the link adaptation in step 510 will revert to a conventional level, and other terminals 300 not having sent in “time limited performance requirement(s)” will be assigned conventional levels of adaptation, teaching this limitation)
As to claims 1, 3, 5, please see rejection for claims 14, 16, 18, in the same order.
AS to claim 8, see rejection for claim 14.
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.
Claim(s) 15,19,20,2,6-7,12,13,9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/194463 A1 to Ljung (cited in Applicant’s IDS), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0035438 A1 to Pao et al.
As to claim 15, Ljung discloses the module as in the parent claim 14.
Ljung does not appear to explicitly disclose further for requesting the QPLA parameters from the one or more stations.
Pao discloses further for requesting the QPLA parameters from the one or more stations. (paragraph 74, disclosing the eNB configuring the UE to trigger feedback under certain threshold conditions, teaching a bRI embodiment of this limitation).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Pao, in conjunction with the teachings of Ljung, to reject the limitations of this claim, since a phosita would have found it obvious to incorporate Pao’s method of first requesting the QPLA parameters, in Ljung’s method of UE reporting the QPLA parameters. This is at least because the cited references are in the same field of endeavor of network performance feedback methodologies. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve methods for reporting network performance metrics and managing such information. (Ljung, pages 1-2; Pao, paragraphs 1-10 ). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 19, Ljung discloses the module as in the parent claim 14.
Ljung does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the link adaptation is for a wireless local area network basic service set.
Pao discloses wherein the link adaptation is for a wireless local area network basic service set. (paragraph 105).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Pao, in conjunction with the teachings of Ljung, to reject the limitations of this claim, at least because the cited references are in the same field of endeavor of network performance feedback methodologies. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve methods for reporting network performance metrics and managing such information. (Ljung, pages 1-2; Pao, paragraphs 1-10 ). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 20, Ljung discloses the module as in the parent claim 14.
Ljung does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the link adaptation is for an 802.11 protocol.
Pao discloses wherein the link adaptation is for an 802.11 protocol. (paragraph 105).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Pao, in conjunction with the teachings of Ljung, to reject the limitations of this claim, at least because the cited references are in the same field of endeavor of network performance feedback methodologies. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve methods for reporting network performance metrics and managing such information. (Ljung, pages 1-2; Pao, paragraphs 1-10 ). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claims 2,6,7, please see rejection for claims 15,19,20, in the same order.
AS to claims 9, 12,13 see rejection for claim 15, 19, 20, in the same order.
As to claim 10, Ljung and Pao teach the module as in the parent claim 9.
Ljung further discloses wherein the performance preference comprises a data rate preference and a PER preference. (page 6, line 24 – page 7, line 10, Fig. 2, page 7, lines 18 - page 8, line 25, “300 transmits … to the second wireless node 400, information indicative of a time limited performance requirement of an upper layer” in 508, such information being embodied by “data rate” [“data rate preference”], “packet loss ratio [teaching “PER preference”]”, latency indication, jitter, teaching “performance preference”, where such “time limited performance requirement” is used to determine “scheduling of UL data and handling of ratio link” in step 510 [page 9])
As to claim 11, Ljung and Pao teach the module as in the parent claim 9.
Ljung further discloses wherein the QPLA parameters are generated from information in a higher layer. (page 2, lines 18-28, page 6, line 24 – page 7, line 10, Fig. 2, page 7, lines 18 - page 8, line 25, “300 transmits … to the second wireless node 400, information indicative of a time limited performance requirement of an upper layer” in 508, such information being embodied by “data rate” [“data rate preference”], “packet loss ratio [teaching “PER preference”]”, latency indication, jitter, teaching “performance preference”, where such “time limited performance requirement” is used to determine “scheduling of UL data and handling of ratio link” in step 510 [page 9])
Claim(s) 4,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/194463 A1 to Ljung (cited in Applicant’s IDS), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0014279 A1 to Miyoshi et al.
As to claim 17, Ljung discloses the module as in the parent claim 14.
Ljung discloses wherein the link adaptation comprises a modulation and coding scheme (page 13, lines 10-20: MCS).
Ljung does not appear to explicitly disclose varying a number of space time streams being closely related to channel conditions.
Miyoshi discloses varying a number of space time streams being closely related to channel conditions (paragraph 77)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Miyoshi, in conjunction with the teachings of Ljung, to reject the limitations of this claim, since a phosita would have understood that the relationship disclosed in Miyoshi regarding the number of space time streams would have motivated the combination of Miyoshi’s teachings and Ljung’s teachings above to reject “wherein the link adaptation comprises a modulation and coding scheme and a number of space time streams.” This is at least because the cited references are in the same field of endeavor of network performance analysis and methodologies. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve methods for optimizing network performance utilizing network performance metrics and managing such information. (Ljung, pages 1-2; Pao, paragraphs 1-10; Miyoshi, paragraphs 1-19 ). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 4, see rejection for claim 17 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463