Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/1/25 has been entered.
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 wireless mobile device 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 wireless mobile device base station”, the specification does not clearly describe the above “wireless mobile device 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 wireless mobile device 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 wireless mobile device base station”, the specification does not clearly describe the above “wireless mobile device 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 2-20 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.
Regarding claims 2-20, there is some confusion regarding the amended claim term “a wireless mobile device base station”. It is unclear what apparatus that the above term is directed to, e.g. is the above term a mobile device? Or a base station? A base station with mobile capabilities? A mobile device having base station functionality? It appears that only paragraphs [0042], [0088], and [0096] of Applicant’s specification generally state this term, but do not provide any further explanation as to what type of apparatus this term constitutes. As a result, these claims are considered indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claims 2-20, Applicant argues that the claimed analysis of a test pattern, generation of an active probing channel condition, generation of operational data comprising a re-transmission request, and transmission of the active probing channel condition information and the re-transmission request are supported by 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 also points to paragraph [0024] which 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”. 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. Paragraph [0024] also describes an ACK message packet indicating a confirmation of safe receipt of a packet. It is unclear whether the ACK message would correspond to the claimed “re-transmission request” since the re-transmission request is claimed as generated in response to data errors caused by channel condition on the first wireless channel rather than to confirm safe receipt of a packet.
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 “wireless mobile device base station” to enable the base station to adjust at least one configuration parameter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
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