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
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/16/2026.
Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Claims 1-24 are rejected.
Claims 1 and 23-24 are independent claims.
Response to Amendment
- Claim Objection
5. Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determining” in line 5 should be “determine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROBERT ENGEL et al. (US 2003/0005144 A1), hereinafter ENGEL, in view of Bhumip Khasnabish et al. (US 2006/0239271 A1), hereinafter Khasnabish.
For claim 1, ENGEL teaches a method comprising:
transmitting, by a device, data over a network during a period of time (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 8 and paragraphs 1 and 19.);
determining a first transmission time that the device spends transmitting data over the network during the period of time (ENGEL teaches monitoring bandwidth usage and determining the transmission time/rate consumed by a device’s transmissions. See Fig. 9 step 910 and paragraphs 108, 119. ENGEL further teaches a leaky bucket packet shaping scheme that continuously measures and tracks transmission activity: “The amount of credits added to the peak rate monitoring bucket is T*p, the amount added to the average rate monitoring bucket is T*a where T is the interval of the shaping timer.”[0098] And “The test is true only if both leaky buckets contain credits (i.e. pdepth>0 and adepth>0) AND if the socket buffer contains data to send (b>0). ”[0101]. This monitoring bandwidth consumed over a timed interval is to determine a first transmission time.); and
in response to determining that the first transmission time exceeding a threshold (ENGEL teaches that its leaky bucket scheme “is used to determine if a packet can be delivered or if the packet has to be delayed,” and that rule-based decisions are triggered when bucket credits are exhausted-i.e., when measured transmission activity has exceeded a limit.):
avoiding, by the device, transmitting a first type of data over the network during the period of time (ENGEL teaches that when a client has concurrent audio and/or video sessions, the rule set controls that packets to be sent slower or blocks certain transmissions, (see ENGEL, claim 13). ENGEL further teaches: “in the case of a rule applying for receiving, delay means not delivering the packet to the network or not delivering it to the application”. ENGEL, claim 4 also teaches “when to prevent packet sending.”. ENGEL also teaches that “a policy can restrict clear text transmission of telnet sessions to a server,” demonstrating selective avoidance of a specific type of data transmission. Thus, ENGEL teaches avoiding, by the device, transmitting a first type of data in response to a determined condition.), and
transmitting, by the device, a second type of data over the network during the period of time (ENGEL, Fig. 1 and paragraph 19 distinguishes between “real time UDP/RTP packets” and “data downloaded from the World Wide Web server,” teaching concurrent transmission of multiple data types and differential treatment thereof. ENGEL, Fig. 9 and paragraphs 119-121 teaches “free bandwidth” calculation-i.e., “the bandwidth available for other transmission like downloading data from the network server”-establishes that when one type of data (real-time media) is consuming bandwidth, a second type of data (ordinary/background data) continues to be transmitted within the remaining available capacity.).
Khasnabish further teaches when a utilization threshold is exceeded with respect to voice services transmission (first type), the system reroutes or manages traffic to continue transmitting data streams of another type, confirming that a second type of data continues to be transmitted while the first type is controlled (Khasnabish, Figs. 6-7, abstract and paragraphs 100-106.).
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 in ENGEL with Khasnabish to have a method comprising: transmitting, by a device, data over a network during a period of time; determining a first transmission time that the device spends transmitting data over the network during the period of time; and in response to determining that the first transmission time exceeding a threshold: avoiding, by the device, transmitting a first type of data over the network during the period of time, and
transmitting, by the device, a second type of data over the network during the period of time. Because both references are directed to the same technical field of managing data transmissions over a network to maintain quality of service. ENGEL provides the device-level framework for classifying, monitoring, and controlling packets by type according to rule-based thresholds. Khasnabish provides explicit method for determining link/transmission utilization thresholds and triggering responsive action when those thresholds are exceeded. Combining Khasnabish’s threshold-monitoring method with ENGEL’s per-device, per-traffic-type transmission control would yield predictable results.
For claim 2, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein avoiding transmitting the first type of data comprises: receiving a request for transmitting data of the first type; and declining to transmit the data of the first type (ENGEL, Fig. 4 and paragraph 70.).
For claim 3, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 2, the method further comprising transmitting, by the device, a method indicating that the device declined to transmit the data of the first type (ENGEL, Fig. 4 and paragraph 70.).
For claim 4, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first type of data comprises application- level data (ENGEL, Fig. 4 and paragraph 72.).
For claim 5, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first type of data comprises data having a size greater than a threshold (ENGEL, Fig. 7 and paragraph 100.).
For claim 6, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the second type of data comprises transmitting link state or link status messages over the network (ENGEL, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 70, 119-121.).
For claim 7, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the second type of data comprises periodically transmitting link status messages (ENGEL, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 70, 119-121.).
For claim 8, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, further comprising originating the second type of data by the device (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 19, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 9, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the second type of data comprises transmitting second type of data received via the network (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 19, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 10, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, further comprising reserving a portion of time of the period of time for transmission, by the device, of second type of data (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 11, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting second type of data comprises transmitting, by the device, via the network, a message that the device is available in the network (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 12, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the second type of data comprises transmitting an indication of an amount of bandwidth consumed by the device during the period of time (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 56, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 13, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the second type of data comprises transmitting an indication of an amount of bandwidth remaining for the device during the period of time (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 56, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 14, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 15, wherein transmitting the second type of data comprises transmitting an indication of an amount of time remaining during the period of time for the device to reach a transmission time equal to the maximum transmission time (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 56, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 15, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, wherein the period of time is a first period of time, the method further comprising in response to the first transmission time reaching a maximum transmission time, suspending transmissions of data of the device over the network until a start of a second period of time, and wherein transmitting the second type of data comprises transmitting an indication of an amount of time remaining until the start of a second period of time (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 56, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 16, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: during the period of time, receiving a request to transmit time-sensitive data; and transmitting, by the device, at least a portion of the requested time-sensitive data during the period of time after determining that the first transmission time exceeds the threshold (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 56, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 17, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 16, further comprising reserving a buffer of time of the period of time in addition to a time associated with transmitting the requested time-sensitive data (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 4, 11, 19, 49, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 18, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 16, wherein the period of time is a first period of time, the method further comprising reserving time for transmission of at least another portion of the requested time-sensitive data during a second period of time (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 56, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 19, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 16, wherein the time-sensitive data is flagged in a header or control portion of a data packet or frame (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 4, 19, 56, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 20, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 15, wherein a duration of the first period of time is equal to a duration of the second period of time (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 12, 19, 56, 70, 119-121.).
For claim 22, ENGEL and Khasnabish further teach the method of claim 15, wherein the period of time has a duration of 3600 seconds and the maximum transmission time is between 90 seconds and 100 seconds (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 4, 9 and paragraphs 76, 117. 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 in ENGEL with Khasnabish to have the period of time has a duration of 3600 seconds and the maximum transmission time is between 90 seconds and 100 seconds. Because it is easy to set any period in the wireless communication system field.).
For claim 23, ENGEL teaches a device (ENGEL, Figs. 1, item 170) comprising:
a transceiver (ENGEL, Figs. 1, item 170 and paragraph 46); and
a processor (ENGEL, Figs. 1, item 170 and paragraph 46) core coupled to the transceiver, the processor core configurable to:
receive, via the transceiver, a first request to reserve a portion of a bandwidth allocation for first data (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 8 and paragraphs 1 and 19.);
adjust communication of the transceiver based on the first request (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 8 and paragraphs 1 and 19.); and
transmit, via the transceiver, a second request to another device to reserve a portion of bandwidth allocation of the another device for the first data (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 8 and paragraphs 1 and 19.).
Khasnabish further teaches when a utilization threshold is exceeded with respect to voice services transmission (first type), the system reroutes or manages traffic to continue transmitting data streams of another type, confirming that a second type of data continues to be transmitted while the first type is controlled (Khasnabish, Figs. 6-7, abstract and paragraphs 100-106.).
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 in ENGEL with Khasnabish to have a method to receive, via the transceiver, a first request to reserve a portion of a bandwidth allocation for first data; adjust communication of the transceiver based on the first request; and transmit, via the transceiver, a second request to another device to reserve a portion of bandwidth allocation of the another device for the first data. Because both references are directed to the same technical field of managing data transmissions over a network to maintain quality of service. ENGEL provides the device-level framework for classifying, monitoring, and controlling packets by type according to rule-based thresholds. Khasnabish provides explicit method for determining link/transmission utilization thresholds and triggering responsive action when those thresholds are exceeded. Combining Khasnabish’s threshold-monitoring method with ENGEL’s per-device, per-traffic-type transmission control would yield predictable results.
For claim 24, ENGEL teaches a device (ENGEL, Figs. 1, item 160) comprising:
a transceiver (ENGEL, Figs. 1, item 160 and paragraph 15); and
a processor (ENGEL, Figs. 1, item 160 and paragraph 15) core coupled to the transceiver, the processor core configurable to:
transmit, via the transceiver, data during a period of time (ENGEL, Figs. 1, 8 and paragraphs 1 and 19.);
determining a first transmission time that the device spends transmitting data over the network during the period of time (ENGEL teaches monitoring bandwidth usage and determining the transmission time/rate consumed by a device’s transmissions. See Fig. 9 step 910 and paragraphs 108, 119. ENGEL further teaches a leaky bucket packet shaping scheme that continuously measures and tracks transmission activity: “The amount of credits added to the peak rate monitoring bucket is T*p, the amount added to the average rate monitoring bucket is T*a where T is the interval of the shaping timer.”[0098] And “The test is true only if both leaky buckets contain credits (i.e. pdepth>0 and adepth>0) AND if the socket buffer contains data to send (b>0). ”[0101]. This monitoring bandwidth consumed over a timed interval is to determine a first transmission time.); and
in response to determining that the first transmission time exceeding a threshold (ENGEL teaches that its leaky bucket scheme “is used to determine if a packet can be delivered or if the packet has to be delayed,” and that rule-based decisions are triggered when bucket credits are exhausted-i.e., when measured transmission activity has exceeded a limit.):
avoid transmitting, via the transceiver, a first type of data during the period of time (ENGEL teaches that when a client has concurrent audio and/or video sessions, the rule set controls that packets to be sent slower or blocks certain transmissions, (see ENGEL, claim 13). ENGEL further teaches: “in the case of a rule applying for receiving, delay means not delivering the packet to the network or not delivering it to the application”. ENGEL, claim 4 also teaches “when to prevent packet sending.”. ENGEL also teaches that “a policy can restrict clear text transmission of telnet sessions to a server,” demonstrating selective avoidance of a specific type of data transmission. Thus, ENGEL teaches avoiding, by the device, transmitting a first type of data in response to a determined condition.), and
transmit, via the transceiver, a second type of data during the period of time (ENGEL, Fig. 1 and paragraph 19 distinguishes between “real time UDP/RTP packets” and “data downloaded from the World Wide Web server,” teaching concurrent transmission of multiple data types and differential treatment thereof. ENGEL, Fig. 9 and paragraphs 119-121 teaches “free bandwidth” calculation-i.e., “the bandwidth available for other transmission like downloading data from the network server”-establishes that when one type of data (real-time media) is consuming bandwidth, a second type of data (ordinary/background data) continues to be transmitted within the remaining available capacity.).
Khasnabish further teaches when a utilization threshold is exceeded with respect to voice services transmission (first type), the system reroutes or manages traffic to continue transmitting data streams of another type, confirming that a second type of data continues to be transmitted while the first type is controlled (Khasnabish, Figs. 6-7, abstract and paragraphs 100-106.).
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 in ENGEL with Khasnabish to have a method comprising: transmitting, by a device, data over a network during a period of time; determining a first transmission time that the device spends transmitting data over the network during the period of time; and in response to determining that the first transmission time exceeding a threshold: avoiding, by the device, transmitting a first type of data over the network during the period of time, and
transmitting, by the device, a second type of data over the network during the period of time. Because both references are directed to the same technical field of managing data transmissions over a network to maintain quality of service. ENGEL provides the device-level framework for classifying, monitoring, and controlling packets by type according to rule-based thresholds. Khasnabish provides explicit method for determining link/transmission utilization thresholds and triggering responsive action when those thresholds are exceeded. Combining Khasnabish’s threshold-monitoring method with ENGEL’s per-device, per-traffic-type transmission control would yield predictable results.
10. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROBERT ENGEL et al. (US 2003/0005144 A1), hereinafter ENGEL, in view of Bhumip Khasnabish et al. (US 2006/0239271 A1), hereinafter Khasnabish and Naganori Shirakata et al. (US 2011/0261764 A1), hereinafter Shirakata.
For claim 21, ENGEL and Khasnabish teach all the limitations of parent claim 1. ENGEL and Khasnabish do not explicitly teach an IEEE 802.15.4 standard.
However, Shirakata explicitly teaches an IEEE 802.15.4 standard (Shirakata, Fig. 9 and paragraph 111.).
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 in ENGEL and Khasnabish with an IEEE 802.15.4 standard taught in Shirakata in order to avoid interference caused by a plurality of channels being used [Shirakata: background].
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
12. 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
Prosecution Insights