DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Examiner was unable to locate clear support in Applicant’s originally filed specification for “a base station comprising: a first interface that wirelessly couples to a base station using a first wireless channel, the first interface receives data from the base station on the first wireless channel, the first interface further receives a test pattern relating to an active probing process on the first wireless channel; a second interface that wirelessly couples to the base station, the second interface transmits information to the base station on a second wireless channel”.
Specifically, while paragraph [0088] of Applicant’s specification generally describes where a communication device comprises “a base station”, the specification does not clearly describe the above “base station” including multiple interfaces used for the above claimed purposes. Therefore, the above limitation is considered new matter.
Examiner was also unable to locate clear support in Applicant’s originally filed specification for “a processor coupled to the first and second interfaces, the processor analyzes the test pattern and generates active probing channel condition information; wherein the processor analyzes the data received on the first interface and generates operational data comprising a re-transmission request in response to data errors caused by channel condition on the first wireless channel, the re-transmission request to be used in a passive probing process; and wherein the second interface transmits the active probing channel condition information and the re-transmission request to enable the base station to adjust at least one configuration parameter.
Specifically, while Figure 5 and paragraph [0074] of Applicant’s specification generally describe a processor-based system 500 including a processor 501 coupled to network interface 505; and while paragraph [0059] of Applicant’s specification describes where operational data may include retransmission counts, the specification does not clearly describe the above processor analysis of a test pattern, generation of active probing channel condition information, generation of a retransmission request in response to data errors to be used in a passive probing process, and/or the transmission of the active probing channel condition information and the retransmission request to enable a base station to adjust a configuration parameter. Therefore, the above limitation is considered new matter.
Claims 3-11 are also rejected as being dependent on claim 2 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Examiner was unable to locate clear support in Applicant’s originally filed specification for “a base station comprising: a first interface that wirelessly couples to a base station using a first wireless channel, the first interface transmits a test pattern to the base station on the first wireless channel, the test pattern related to an active probing process performed by the base station; a second interface that couples to the base station using a second wireless channel”.
Specifically, while paragraph [0088] of Applicant’s specification generally describes where a communication device comprises “a base station”, the specification does not clearly describe the above “base station” including multiple interfaces used for the above claimed purposes. Therefore, the above limitation is considered new matter.
Examiner was also unable to locate clear support in Applicant’s originally filed specification for “the second interface transmits a re-transmission request in response to an error in data received on the first interface, the re-transmission request is analyzed as part of a passive probing process performed by the base station; wherein the second interface receives a configuration parameter adjustment from the base station related to an analysis of the active and passive probing processes; and a processor that couples to the second interface, the processor implements the configuration parameter adjustment received from the base station.
Specifically, while Figure 5 and paragraph [0074] of Applicant’s specification generally describe a processor-based system 500 including a processor 501 coupled to a network interface 505; and while paragraph [0059] of Applicant’s specification describes where operational data may include retransmission counts, the specification does not clearly describe the above processor implementing a configuration parameter adjustment in relation to analysis of active and passive probing processes, and where the passive probing process includes analysis of a received retransmission request received in response to a data error. Therefore, the above limitation is considered new matter.
Claims 13-20 are also rejected as being dependent on claim 12 and containing the same deficiency.
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 3, 4, 17, and 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the wireless mobile device base station" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the wireless mobile device base station" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the wireless mobile device base station" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the wireless mobile device base station" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claims 2-20, in response to Examiner’s argument that multiple interfaces are not supported in Applicant’s specification, Applicant argues that the communication device 1031 of Figure 1 clearly illustrates the communication device communicating with multiple wireless mobile devices using different connections, and that one skilled in the art would recognize that these connections may be managed by one or multiple interfaces on the communication device, both scenarios being covered by the claims.
However, the current claim language does not appear to cover the scenario where a single interface performs the claimed receiving and transmitting steps. Rather, the claim language specifically recites “a first interface” that performs specific transmission/reception steps on a first wireless channel with a base station while “a second interface” performs other specific transmission/reception steps on a second wireless channel with that same base station.
Referring to Figure 1, the figure shows communication device 1031 communicating with optimization center 101 via wireless channel 1071 as well as communicating with STAs 1061, 1062, …106M via respective separate wireless channels. However, Figure 1 does not show communication device 1031 communicating with a particular STA 106 over a first wireless channel using a first interface and also over a second wireless channel using a second interface. Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language is that there is significance to the claimed “first interface” and “second interface” and the specific transmission/reception steps performed by each of these interfaces. Without clear support of this concept in Applicant’s specification, Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claims (e.g. would prior art including any number of interfaces that perform the claimed transmission/reception steps meet the claim?).
In response to Examiner’s argument that the limitations “generates active probing channel condition information” and “re-transmission requests” are not supported by the specification, Applicant asserts that the specification discusses in multiple locations the use of NACK requests, which are retransmission requests.
However, Examiner was unable to locate any disclosure of the term “NACK request(s)” in the specification. Examiner was also unable to locate any disclosure of the term “retransmission request” in the specification. The only “requests” referred to in the specification are pertaining to an ICMP echo request in paragraph [0033], and request-to-send (RTS) messaging in paragraphs [0070], [0084], and [0093].
Applicant further asserts that the specification describes the process of counting retransmission requests and that would be understood by one of skill in the art that retransmission requests are generated.
However, Examiner was unable to locate any disclosure of the above asserted process of counting retransmission requests. Paragraph [0024] of Applicant’s specification appears to describe “operational data” as including “retransmission counts”. However, it is unclear as to whether or not the disclosed “retransmission counts” are equivalent to the claimed “re-transmission request” (e.g. would a retransmission count include a count of actual retransmissions? Or a count of requests for a retransmission(s)?). The specification does not clearly describe this. Referring to Applicant’s paragraphs [0023]-[0024], it appears that the disclosed “retransmission counts” are operational data including a count value retrieved from a counter which does not appear to correspond to “a re-transmission request” that is transmitted.
Applicant further asserts that “generating active probing channel condition information” would be clearly understood by one skilled in the art to be supported by the specification based on paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s specification.
While paragraph [0015] appears to provide a general definition of the term “active probing” as including the sending of test pattern/data from one communication device to another, and the measurement of performance statistics of the sent test pattern/data (which seems to correspond to the claimed “analyzing a test pattern”), paragraph [0015] as well as the remainder of Applicant’s specification does not describe the generation of “active probing channel condition information”.
Applicant further asserts that the term “channel condition information” is described in paragraph [0086] which states “reading operational data which includes data related to channel and its noise condition and counter values related to user data traffic between the communication device and another communication device”.
However, the above “operational data” is described in Applicant’s specification as pertaining to passive probing rather than active probing (see e.g. step 307 of Figure 3). The above “generating active probing channel condition information” appears to be generated in response to analyzing a test pattern (based upon the current claim language). The test pattern is related to an active probing process as claimed. In other words, the “data related to channel and its noise condition” is included in operational data of a passive probing process and would not correspond to the claimed “active probing channel condition information”. Without clear support of this concept in Applicant’s specification, Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claims.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification also does not describe the subsequent transmission of the generated active probing channel condition information and the re-transmission request by the second interface of the claimed “base station” to enable the other base station to adjust at least one configuration parameter as claimed.
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 MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights