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
The Section 112 indefiniteness rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Section 102 directed to the independent claims 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.
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) 14,16,18,1,3,5,8 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. 2014/0119294 A1 to Ho et al.
As to claim 14, Ljung discloses a module for an access point in a network system comprising the access point and one or more stations, the access point being linked to the 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 indicated in the information of S102”).
Ljung does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the performance preference indicates an importance of the PER requirement relative to the data rate requirement.
Ho discloses wherein the performance preference indicates an importance of the PER requirement relative to the data rate requirement. (Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs 21-24, in particular, steps S51, S52, disclosing that the “packet error rate” parameter is handled first, before the “data rate” parameter, further disclosing “[in step S05-S06] … the priority weights set in the predetermined parameter priority order are assigned from high to low as: the packet error rate parameter, the data rate parameter, the RSSI parameter, the data ACK timeout parameter and the transmission power parameter”, all teaching that the “PER” assumes more importance than “data rate”)
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 Ho, in conjunction with the teachings of Ljung, to reject the limitations of this claim, at least since a phosita would have understood that the teachings of both Ho and Ljung are both implemented at an AP in a wireless communication infrastructure and thus Ho’s teachings may readily be incorporated in Ljung’s AP, and since both Ho and Ljung are directed to similar communication parameters such as PER and data rate, thus further rendering it obvious to prioritize such parameters in the manner disclosed/taught by Ho. Further note that 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. (Ho, paragraphs 1-9; 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 16, Ljung and Ho teach 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 and Ho teach 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(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. 2014/0119294 A1 to Ho et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0035438 A1 to Pao et al.
As to claim 15, Ljung and Ho teach 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. (Ho, paragraphs 1-10; 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 and Ho teach 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 ; Ho, 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 and Ho teach 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 ; Ho, 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, Ho 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, Ho 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. 2014/0119294 A1 to Ho et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0014279 A1 to Miyoshi et al.
As to claim 17, Ljung and Ho teach 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; Ho, 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 4, see rejection for claim 17 above.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights