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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the application filed on 10/29/2025.
3. Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
4. Claim 23 is rejected.
5. Claims 1-22 and 24 are allowed.
6. Claims 1 and 23-24 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitaka Ohta (US 2009/0070468 A1) hereinafter Ohta.
For claim 23, Ohta teaches a device (Ohta, Fig. 2) comprising:
a transceiver (Ohta, Fig. 2 item 19.); and
a processor core (Ohta, Fig. 2 item 18.) coupled to the transceiver, the processor core configurable to:
receive, via the transceiver from a first device, a first request to reserve a portion of a bandwidth allocation for first data (Ohta, Fig. 11 step S402 and paragraph 204 teach the data reception terminal 100 transmits the first band-allocation-request packet to the first relay device 200 (Step S402).);
adjust communication of the transceiver based on the first request (Ohta, Fig. 11 step S403 and paragraph 205 teach reserving bandwidth R1.); and
transmit, via the transceiver, a second request to the first device to reserve a portion of bandwidth allocation of the first device (Ohta, Fig. 11 step S413 and paragraph 215 teach the first relay device 200 transfers the second band-allocation-request packet, to which the post-processing information has been added, to the data reception terminal 100 (Step S413). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught Ohta to have transmitting, via the transceiver, a second request to another device to reserve a portion of bandwidth allocation of the another device for setting Quality of Service (QoS) that guarantees the quality of transmission during data transmission [Ohta: background]).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILL W LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8749. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/WILL W LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412