1DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/13/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited portions of Medapalli (WO2021050442).
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a throughput metric.
However the examiner disagrees. The examiner removes the prior art Zhang which was previously used to teach throughput metric and relies on newly cited portions of Medapalli which teaches counting a number of frames over a time period to compare to a threshold (e.g. throughput metric).
Medapalli states:
[0060] At block 608, the reservation pattern detector 408 compares the determined reservation duration with the determined repetition interval. At block 610, the reservation pattern detector 408 designates the first wireless device as an offender (e.g., a channel hogger) based on the comparison. For example, if the reservation pattern detector 408 determines that the reservation duration meets or exceeds a threshold portion of the repetition interval (e.g., a selected fraction of the interval), it may deem the sender to be a hogger. In another example, referring to FIG. 2, when the access point 104 uses its reservation pattern detector 408 to determine that the interval 234 is shorter than the reservation duration 232, the reservation pattern detector 408 may identify the base station 122 as a hogger. In some embodiments, the reservation pattern detector 408 may wait to identify the base station 122 as a hogger until the multiple frames associated with the repetition interval and the reservation duration meet or exceed a threshold number of consecutive frames. In embodiments, the reservation pattern detector 408 may set the threshold number of frames and/or the threshold portion of the interval, based on the location of the wireless device, the time of day, the day of the week, and/or the latency sensitivity of the type of traffic (e.g., voice, audio, video, or data) to be communicated on the channel.
In the above cited portions, Medapalli measures the number of frames transmitted in a interval meaning it measures the amount of data over a time period which is equivalent to the “data throughput metric” as cited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would equate the measurement of a number of frames over a time duration as a data throughput metric.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-11, 14-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Medapalli (WO2021050442)
Regarding claim 1 and 10 and 16,
Medapalli teaches A method comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive data compatible with a wireless communications protocol; (see transceiver for wireless device, para [0042])
a processing device coupled to the transceiver and configured to: (interpreted as wireless device 400 para [0042])
monitoring, using one or more processing elements, one or more data throughput metrics associated with a first wireless device; (interpreted as Detecting the pattern of medium reservations may include analyzing various reservation attributes, which may include without limitation, reservation durations, medium idle periods, intervals between suspect frames, number of suspect frames, suspect frame source and/or recipients. In embodiments, detecting patterns of medium reservations may include comparing reservation attributes to one another and/or to reservation threshold values, see para [0024]. Also see The reservation pattern detector 408 may also utilize counter logic (not shown) to count a number of frames, timing circuitry (not shown) to calculate repetition intervals, and various reservation threshold values 426 stored in the memory system 422 to recognize aggressive reservation patterns, see para [0054])
identifying, using the one or more processing elements, a presence of medium reservation activity associated with a second wireless device based, at least in part, on a comparison of the one or more data throughput metrics and a data throughput threshold value (interpreted as In some embodiments, the reservation pattern detector 408 may wait to identify the base station 122 as a hogger until the multiple frames associated with the repetition interval and the reservation duration meet or exceed a threshold number of consecutive frames, see para [0060]).
generating, using the one or more processing elements, a mitigation signal based, at least in part, on a designated data pattern, the mitigation signal comprising a plurality of mitigation data packets configured to reduce medium reservation by the first wireless; and (interpreted as In another embodiment, the mitigation signal includes a frame transmitted at a selected time,
power, length, direction, and/or frequency (e.g., using transmit beamforming or narrowband
transmission) in order to interfere with the remote wireless device's ability to decode frames
(e.g., reservations) sent by the first wireless device, see para [0024])
transmitting the mitigation signal to the first wireless device. (interpreted as transmitting a mitigation signal to a remote wireless device, see para [0024])
Regarding claim 2 and 11 and 17,
Medapalli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the mitigation signal causes a reset of a local network allocation vector (NAV) value, and is further causes the first wireless device to switch wireless channels. (interpreted as Mitigation operations may include clearing a local NAV value and then
transmitting a mitigation signal to a remote wireless device, see para [0024])
Regarding claim 7 and 14,
Medapalli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the mitigation signal further comprises: generating a mitigation signal data pattern identifying a timing of the plurality of mitigation data packets. (interpreted as The mitigation operation may include the reservation mitigator 418 transmitting a mitigation signal (e.g., a frame) at a selected time, power, length, direction, and/or frequency that interferes with the other wireless device’s reception of a subsequent frame (e.g., a reservation frame), see para [0056])
Regarding claim 8,
Medapalli teaches the method of claim 7 further comprising: dynamically modifying a period of at least some of the plurality of mitigation packets included in the mitigation signal. (interpreted as The mitigation operation may include the reservation mitigator 418 transmitting a mitigation signal (e.g., a frame) at a selected time, power, length, direction, and/or frequency that interferes with the other wireless device’s reception of a subsequent frame (e.g., a reservation frame), see para [0056])
Regarding claim 9 and 15 and 20,
Medapalli teaches the method of claim 8, wherein modifying of the period of at least some of the plurality of mitigation packets is performed responsive to determining that a data throughput associated with the first wireless device is less than a designated threshold value. (interpreted as In some embodiments, the reservation pattern detector 408 may wait to identify the base station 122 as a hogger until the multiple frames associated with the repetition interval and the reservation duration meet or exceed a threshold number of consecutive frames, see para [0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 3-4 ,12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medapalli (WO2021050442) further in view of Zhang (Pub No 20180091999)
Regarding claim 3 and 12 and 18,
Medapalli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the presence of the medium reservation activity further comprises: identifying a threshold value crossing based on the one or more data throughput metrics of the first wireless device,. (interpreted as Embodiments described herein detect patterns of medium reservations by a first wireless device, for example by detecting that the first wireless device has indicated a reservation duration that meets or exceeds a threshold duration value, see para [0022])
However does not teach wherein the threshold value crossing is identified based on a status of an application buffer
Zhang teaches wherein the threshold value crossing is identified based on a status of an application buffer (interpreted as When the UE determines that a QoE measurement result is bad for a certain time (T2) (e.g., when a service delay is longer than a certain threshold, when a playout delay is longer than a certain threshold, when an initial playout delay is longer than a certain threshold, or when an application buffer level is a certain threshold or less, and is not enough for a seamless service), see para [0124])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Medapalli with the with the application buffer threshold as taught by Zhang with the benefit of determining interference in the network
Regarding claim 4,
Medapalli teaches the method of claim 3, however does not teach wherein the application buffer is included in a communications application executed by the first wireless device.
Zhang teaches wherein the application buffer is included in a communications application executed by the first wireless device. (interpreted as When the UE determines that a QoE measurement result is bad for a certain time (T2) (e.g., when a service delay is longer than a certain threshold, when a playout delay is longer than a certain threshold, when an initial playout delay is longer than a certain threshold, or when an application buffer level is a certain threshold or less, and is not enough for a seamless service), see para [0124])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Medapalli with the with the application buffer threshold as taught by Zhang with the benefit of determining interference in the network.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medapalli (WO2021050442) further in view of Huang (Pat No 20230189314)
Regarding claim 5,
Medapalli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the presence of the medium reservation activity is performed based, at least in part, on data associated with the first wireless device. (interpreted as In embodiments, detecting patterns of medium reservations may include comparing reservation attributes to one another and/or to reservation threshold values, see para [0023])
However Medapalli in view of Zhang does not teach location data.
Huang teaches location data. (interpreted as Optionally, after it is determined in step S101 that the N uplink symbols are interfered with, whether to perform step S102 needs to be further determined. In two determining manners provided in this embodiment, in a first manner, step S102 is performed if the distance between the first network device and the second network device is less than a distance threshold, to be specific, if the distance between the first network device and the second network device is excessively short, strength of mutual remote interference may be excessively high, see para [0117])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the thresholds taught by Medapalli with the with the location threshold as taught by Huang with the benefit of using location as a parameter for determining interference.
Regarding claim 6 and 13 and 19,
Medapalli teaches the method of claim 5 however does not teach further comprising: comparing the location data with designated location information associated with the second wireless device.
Huang teaches further comprising: comparing the location data with designated location information associated with the second wireless device. (interpreted as Optionally, after it is determined in step S101 that the N uplink symbols are interfered with, whether to perform step S102 needs to be further determined. In two determining manners provided in this embodiment, in a first manner, step S102 is performed if the distance between the first network device and the second network device is less than a distance threshold, to be specific, if the distance between the first network device and the second network device is excessively short, strength of mutual remote interference may be excessively high, see para [0117])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the thresholds taught by Medapalli with the with the location threshold as taught by Huang with the benefit of using location as a parameter for determining possible interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461