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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/01/26, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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) in view of newly cited Arulkkumaran (WO 2016/059053).
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a throughput metric.
The examiner relies on newly cited Arulkkumaran (WO 2016/059053) to teach the amended limitations.
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) 1-2, 7-11, 14-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medapalli (WO2021050442) further in view of Arulkkumaran (WO 2016/059053)
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 device; 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])
However, Medapalli teaches throughput of the wireless device but not throughput of an application of the wireless device.
Arulkkumaran teaches throughput of an application (interpreted as determining whether the number of users in a region of the cell (such as the cell edge) exceeds a user number threshold while throughput per App falls below a minimum App throughput threshold (an App is a software application executable on a user's communication device: Apps that rely upon network connectivity may be affected if the throughput allocated is below some threshold, for instance, a video streaming App with a throughput lower than 300kbps would provide an inadequate display output), see pg 39 line 5-10)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the throughput of the device taught by Medapalli with the throughput for apps of the device as taught by Arulkkumaran with the motivation being to improve the quality of service of the applications.
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(s) 3-4 ,12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medapalli (WO2021050442) further in view of Arulkkumaran (WO 2016/059053) and 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, Medapalli in view of Arulkkumaran 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 in view of Arulkkumaran with the with the application buffer threshold as taught by Zhang with the benefit of determining interference in the network
Regarding claim 4,
Medapalli in view of Arulkkumaran 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 in view of Arulkkumaran 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 Arulkkumaran (WO 2016/059053) and 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 Arulkkumaran 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 in view of Arulkkumaran 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 in view of Arulkkumaran 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 in view of Arulkkumaran with the with the location threshold as taught by Huang with the benefit of using location as a parameter for determining possible interference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights