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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 depends on claim 7 which requires the processor to lower the communication frequency when the remaining quality is equal or to greater than a predetermined threshold value. Thus, it is unclear in claim 8, how the processor is configured to raise the communication frequency even if the remaining quality is equal to or greater than a predetermine threshold value (i.e., claim 8 contradicts claim 7). For examination purpose, claim 8 is interpreted as the processor is configured to lower the communication frequency.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al hereinafter Zhu (US 2024/0175983) in view of Rao et al hereinafter Rao (US 20240147477).
Referring to Claim 1. Zhu discloses an information processing system comprising: at least one memory (refer to par 0054); and at least one processor (refer to par 0054), wherein: the processor is configured to: accept, from an external device, a transmission request containing kinds of data to be transmitted and different transmission times for each kind of data (receiving pairing signal indicating the QoS parameters such as policies/condition/rate/time/protocols, synchronization, refer to par 0057-0058, 0078-0080, 0109); and transmit data to the external device on a basis of the transmission request (based on pairing setting, such as TSCI, refer to par 0078-0080, 0084, and 0109).
Rao, in analogous art, further supports the teaching of Zhu such that it is well known in the art the transmission request contains kind of data to be transmitted and different transmission time for each kind of data (refer to par 0004-0005, 0103).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhu with Rao because Rao’s teaching would allow the system of Zhu to provide additional information upon their current environment.
Referring to Claim 2. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 1, Zhu discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit data on the basis of the transmission request containing, as the transmission times, times determined according to a change in data (change in transmission in data base on change of traffic pattern change, refer to par 0070, 0078-0080).
Referring to Claim 3. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 2, Zhu discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit data on the basis of the transmission request containing, as the transmission times, times determined according to a change in data acquired in the information processing system and an elapsed time since the change occurred (refer to par 0070, 0078-0080, 0084 and 0058, 0122: the elapsed time/time-out is also one of the consideration).
Referring to Claim 4. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 2, Zhu discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit data on the basis of the transmission request when the change in data is that data acquired in the information processing system undergoes a predetermined change from data last transmitted to the external device (transmit data when certain condition/predetermined condition of most recent data that has changed, as according to the rules, 0075, 0077-0080, 0084, 0099-0100, 0117, 0120, 0122).
Referring to Claim 5. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 4, Zhu discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit data on the basis of the transmission request when the predetermined change is that most recent data acquired in the information processing system deviates from a range determined by a data mean value and standard deviation of a predetermined number of samples acquired in the information processing system (characteristic and features deviate from the norm/means/variance, refer to par 0084, 0100, 0099 and 0117, 0120, 0122).
Referring to Claim 6. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 2, Zhu discloses wherein, for a kind of data that is a remaining quantity of consumables consumed in the information processing system, the processor is configured to transmit data on the basis of the transmission request containing, as the transmission times, times determined according to the remaining quantity (refer to par 0122).
Referring to Claim 7. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 6, Rao discloses wherein, when the remaining quantity is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the processor is configured to lower a communication frequency compared to when the remaining quantity is less than the threshold value (refer to par 0004).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhu with Rao because Rao’s teaching would allow the system of Zhu to provide additional information upon their current environment.
Referring to Claim 8. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 7, Rao discloses wherein, even if the remaining quantity is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the processor is configured to lower the communication frequency when a rate of decrease in the remaining quantity exceeds a predetermined threshold value (refer to par 0004).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhu with Rao because Rao’s teaching would allow the system of Zhu to provide additional information upon their current environment.
Referring to Claim 9. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 1, Zhu discloses wherein, for a kind of data that is a setting value set in the information processing system, the processor is configured to transmit data on the basis of the transmission request containing, as the transmission times, times determined according to the setting value (transmit data is based on the setting value, refer to par 0078-0079).
Referring to Claim 10. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 1, Zhu discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit data on the basis of the transmission request containing, as the transmission times, times determined according to a plurality of kinds of data collected into the same category (the time determined is based on means and variance, where the information is calculated from plurality of kind of data collected into the same type, refer to par 0100, 0099 and 0117, 0120, 0122 ).
Referring to Claim 11. Zhu with Rao disclosed the information processing system according to claim 1, Zhu discloses wherein, when a plurality of kinds of data to be transmitted within a predetermined time exist, the processor is configured to transmit data on the basis of the transmission request containing, as the transmission times, a single time determined according to the plurality of kinds of data (adjust the probing signal, refer to par 0053, 0058, 0077).
Referring to Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under similar rational as claims 1- 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights