DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollamudi (US PGPub 2003/0123477) in view of Lee (US PGPub 2017/0099219).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Gollamudi teaches a device comprising:
a wireless communication interface to transmit, using a wireless connection with a remote device, one or more data elements to the remote device (Gollamudi, see paragraph 0013, Wireless communication system 10 comprises a transmitter 12 and a receiver 14. Transmitter 12 includes a transceiver 16 for transmitting and receiving data over an air interface); and
one or more processors to:
identify a condition of the wireless connection (Gollamudi, see paragraph 0015, In step 220, transmitter 12 receives the estimate of channel condition);
determine a rate, for transmission of the one or more data elements, based at least on the condition (Gollamudi, see paragraph 0015, processor 18 uses such estimate to determine a current MCS level m (or data rate). In one embodiment, the current MCS level m is selected from a table of MCS levels n stored in memory 19, where 1≦n,m≦M. Each of the MCS levels n correspond to a channel condition threshold θ(n)).
Gollamudi teaches the above yet fails to teach retrieve a signal from the remote device indicative of at least one criterion for use of the one or more data elements; update the rate based at least on the at least one criterion to determine an updated rate for transmission of the one or more data elements to the remote device; and cause the wireless communication interface to transmit, at the updated rate, the one or more data elements to the remote device.
Then Lee teaches retrieve a signal from the remote device indicative of at least one criterion for use of the one or more data elements (Lee, see paragraphs 0054-0055, The first network device then generates a frame having a MAC header, where a control field of the MAC header includes an indication of the selected MCS (block 920). The first network device then transmits the generated frame to the second network device through a wireless medium (e.g., over the wireless communications link between the first network device and the second network device) (block 930). In this way, the first network device provides a recommended MCS to the second network device that is applicable for the reference payload size [corresponding to at least one criterion]);
update the rate based at least on the at least one criterion to determine an updated rate for transmission of the one or more data elements to the remote device (Lee, see paragraph 0043, the receiving WLAN device selects the recommended MCS to be the MCS having the highest data rate for a given resource unit size and number of spatial streams that will result in a Physical Layer Service Data Unit (PSDU) error rate of 10% or lower for a PSDU length of Npsdu octets); and
cause the wireless communication interface to transmit, at the updated rate, the one or more data elements to the remote device (Lee, see paragraph 0055, The second network device may then adjust the MCS that it uses (from the recommended MCS) so that it is applicable for the payload size of its transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gollamudi with Link adaptation for 802.11 system of Lee, because doing so would make Gollamudi more efficient in providing an appropriate reference for the transmitting STA to properly interpret and utilize the MCS feedback (Lee, see paragraph 0006).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Gollamudi teaches wherein the at least one criterion comprises at least one of a packet error rate, a latency criterion, or a throughput criterion (Lee, see paragraph 0053, The first network device selects an MCS that is determined to have the highest data rate among a plurality of available MCSes that when used to transmit a frame having a reference payload size over the wireless communications link between the first network device and the second network device (e.g., with the measured link quality) results in a frame error rate that is less than or equal to a threshold error rate for a given set of transmission properties (block 910)), and the one or more data elements correspond to video data (Lee, see paragraph 0030, Some network devices are “multiple services network devices” that … provide support for multiple application services (e.g., data, voice, and video)).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Gollamudi teaches wherein the one or more processors are to identify the condition based on at least one of a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the wireless connection or a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) of the wireless connection (Lee, see paragraph 0041, It has been observed that the required signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for a given MCS varies significantly based on payload size).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Gollamudi teaches wherein:
the wireless communication interface comprises a wireless local area network (WLAN) radio (Lee, see paragraph 0007, A method is implemented by a first network device in a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) to provide Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS) feedback); and
the one or more processors are to determine the rate, based at least on the condition, as a selection of a modulation coding scheme (MCS) for WLAN communication over the wireless connection (Lee, see paragraph 0007, A method is implemented by a first network device in a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) to provide Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS) feedback).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Gollamudi teaches wherein the one or more processors are to update the rate by selecting a higher MCS responsive to the at least one criterion indicating a throughput-sensitive use for the one or more data elements (Lee, see paragraph 0043, the receiving WLAN device selects the recommended MCS to be the MCS having the highest data rate for a given resource unit size and number of spatial streams that will result in a Physical Layer Service Data Unit (PSDU) error rate of 10% or lower for a PSDU length of Npsdu octets).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Gollamudi teaches wherein the one or more processors are to update the rate by selecting a lower MCS responsive to the at least one criterion indicating a latency-sensitive use for the one or more data elements (Lee, see paragraph 0043, the receiving WLAN device selects the recommended MCS to be the MCS having the highest data rate for a given resource unit size and number of spatial streams that will result in a Physical Layer Service Data Unit (PSDU) error rate of 10% or lower for a PSDU length of Npsdu octets).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Gollamudi teaches wherein the one or more processors are to retrieve the at least one criterion from a two bit data structure in a header of the signal from the remote device (Lee, see paragraphs 0054-0055, The first network device then generates a frame having a MAC header, where a control field of the MAC header includes an indication of the selected MCS (block 920). The first network device then transmits the generated frame to the second network device through a wireless medium (e.g., over the wireless communications link between the first network device and the second network device) (block 930)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONG G KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri @ 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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.
/CHONG G KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443