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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit configured to”, “determination unit configured to”, and “control unit configured to” in claims 1-6. Each of these is described only by their functions. Based upon Figure 1 and paragraph 12 of the specification, the structure of these “units” appears to be merely logical functions formed by executing a program stored in memory by one or more generic processors/CPUs.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merlin et al. (US 2015/0063318, Merlin-A hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 8, Merlin discloses information processing device and method to be executed by a computer of an information processing device configured to control a plurality of terminals, the information processing device comprising: an acquisition unit (Figure 2, AP controller 230 and/or scheduler 234) configured to acquire, from target terminals present in a predetermined area among the plurality of terminals, pieces of information on periods of data processing to be executed by the target terminals (Paragraph 95 discloses: “In some aspects, the user terminals 120 may send information to the AP 110 indicating their data payload size.); a determination unit (Figure 2, AP controller 230 and/or scheduler 234) configured to determine a period of data transmission to be shared by the target terminals based on the pieces of information on the periods of the data processing of the target terminals that have been acquired by the acquisition unit (Paragraph 92 discloses: “In another embodiment, an AP 110 may send a CTX message 402 at scheduled times. In this embodiment, the scheduled times may be indicated by the AP 110 to the user terminals 120 by using a restricted access window (RAW) indication in a beacon which indicates a time reserved for a group of user terminals 120 to access the medium, a target wake time (TWT) agreement with each user terminal 120 which indicates to multiple user terminals 120 to be awake at the same time to take part in a UL-MU-MIMO transmission, or information in other fields.”. Furthermore paragraph 95 also discloses “the AP 110 may determine an amount of fill data for each user terminal 120 based on the data payload sizes of the user terminals 120 and the AP 110 may indicate an amount of fill data to use, a target transmission duration, a UL PPDU duration, and an MCS for each of the user terminals 120 in the trigger frame. In this aspect, each of the user terminals 120 may determine their data payload size. In another such aspect, the AP 110 may indicate a target transmission duration, a UL PPDU duration, data payload size, MCS, and an amount of fill data for each of the user terminals 120.”);
and a control unit (Figure 2, AP controller 230 and/or scheduler 234) configured to control execution timings of the data processing of the target terminals based on the period of the data transmission that has been determined by the determination unit (As set forth the cited portions above, based upon information gathered from the terminals to the AP, the AP determines a target transmission duration and Restricted Access Window (RAW) within which a given group of terminals is permitted to transmit within. This has the effect of controlling when a group of terminals may transmit/process data within a given scheduled time period.)
RE claim 5, Merlin-A discloses information processing device according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Merlin-A further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to give instructions for the execution timings of the data processing of all the target terminals (Paragraph 92 discloses: “In another embodiment, an AP 110 may send a CTX message 402 at scheduled times. In this embodiment, the scheduled times may be indicated by the AP 110 to the user terminals 120 by using a restricted access window (RAW) indication in a beacon which indicates a time reserved for a group of user terminals 120 to access the medium, a target wake time (TWT) agreement with each user terminal 120 which indicates to multiple user terminals 120 to be awake at the same time to take part in a UL-MU-MIMO transmission, or information in other fields.”. Furthermore paragraph 95 also discloses “the AP 110 may determine an amount of fill data for each user terminal 120 based on the data payload sizes of the user terminals 120 and the AP 110 may indicate an amount of fill data to use, a target transmission duration, a UL PPDU duration, and an MCS for each of the user terminals 120 in the trigger frame. In this aspect, each of the user terminals 120 may determine their data payload size. In another such aspect, the AP 110 may indicate a target transmission duration, a UL PPDU duration, data payload size, MCS, and an amount of fill data for each of the user terminals 120.”).
RE claim 6, Merlin-A discloses information processing device according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Merlin-A further discloses wherein when two or more of the target terminals are first target terminals configured to communicate between the terminals, one of the first target terminals is configured to give an instruction for the execution timing of the data processing to the other one of the first target terminals, and the control unit is configured to give an instruction for the execution timing of the data processing to a second target terminal other than the first target terminals (Paragraph 92 discloses: “In another embodiment, an AP 110 may send a CTX message 402 at scheduled times. In this embodiment, the scheduled times may be indicated by the AP 110 to the user terminals 120 by using a restricted access window (RAW) indication in a beacon which indicates a time reserved for a group of user terminals 120 to access the medium, a target wake time (TWT) agreement with each user terminal 120 which indicates to multiple user terminals 120 to be awake at the same time to take part in a UL-MU-MIMO transmission, or information in other fields.” The group of terminals labelled 12o is shown in Figure 1 as a mixture of terminals in direct contact with the AP as well as terminals which rely upon relayed communications through other terminals. As such Examiner interprets the terminals that form a multi-hop relay chain as the claimed “first terminals” while those that are solely in direct communication with the AP as the claimed “second target terminal”. All of which receive a CTX message disclosed in paragraph 92).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merlin-A in view of Merlin et al. (US 2014/0146725, Merlin-B hereafter).
RE claim 2, Merlin-A discloses information processing device according to claim 1 as set forth above. Merlin-A does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination unit is configured to determine, as the period of the data transmission, a minimum period among the periods of the data processing of the target terminals.
However, Merlin-B teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine, as the period of the data transmission, a minimum period among the periods of the data processing of the target terminals (Paragraph 84 teaches a message by an AP which indicates both the group of listing the selected group of wireless stations allowed to send a packet to the access point during the restricted access window as well as a minimum reserved time for the access window. Any station that requires more time may individually request an extension, but this indicates that the AP has determined a minimum viable RAW for the group.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Merlin-A with the teachings of Merlin-B in order to minimize a shared resource usage duration to the amount of time actually required for a group of terminals/stations to perform their data transmissions/processing.
RE claim 3, Merlin-A discloses information processing device according to claim 1 as set forth above. Merlin-A does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination unit is configured to determine, as the period of the data transmission, a smallest period within a predetermined range among the periods of the data processing of the target terminals.
However, Merlin-B teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine, as the period of the data transmission, a smallest period within a predetermined range among the periods of the data processing of the target terminals. (Paragraph 84 teaches a message by an AP which indicates both the group of listing the selected group of wireless stations allowed to send a packet to the access point during the restricted access window as well as a minimum reserved time for the access window. Any station that requires more time may individually request an extension, but this indicates that the AP has determined a minimum viable RAW for the group.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Merlin-A with the teachings of Merlin-B in order to minimize a shared resource usage duration to the amount of time actually required for a group of terminals/stations to perform their data transmissions/processing.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merlin-A in view of Beale et al. (US 2020/0022149, Beale hereafter).
RE claim 4, Merlin-A discloses information processing device according to claim 1 as set forth above. Merlin-A does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination unit is configured to determine, as the period of the data transmission, a period serving as a greatest common divisor among the periods of the data processing of the target terminals or a period of a minimum unit of one.
However, Beal teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine, as the period of the data transmission, a period serving as a greatest common divisor among the periods of the data processing of the target terminals or a period of a minimum unit of one (Beale at paragraph 86 teaches a method of allocating timeslots of a given frequency resource for a UE to transmit its data and a number of repetition such that “Transmission of a block of physical data allocated to N radio resource units, in a resource bandwidth of M radio resource units, is in this embodiment scheduled to a subset S of the resource bandwidth in consecutive time slots, wherein S is the greatest common divisor of N and M.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Merlin-A with the teachings of Beale since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement in order to arrive at a number of time slots that would define a given transmission period by a UE/terminal/station/etc.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merlin-A in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0152995, Han hereafter).
RE claim 7, Merlin-A discloses information processing device according to claim 1 as set forth above. Merlin-A does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the period of the data transmission to be shared by the target terminals based on a digital twin synchronized in time with a real space on a virtual space provided based on pieces of information acquired from the plurality of terminals and information on a communication quality of the predetermined area in addition to the pieces of information on the periods of the data processing of the target terminals.
However, Han teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the period of the data transmission to be shared by the target terminals based on a digital twin synchronized in time with a real space on a virtual space provided based on pieces of information acquired from the plurality of terminals and information on a communication quality of the predetermined area in addition to the pieces of information on the periods of the data processing of the target terminals (Paragraph 38 teaches “:a cloud server that includes a memory storing context data or communication plan data; connected vehicles that offload responsibility for transmitting their scheduled wireless messages to a cloud server; a cloud server that executes digital twin simulations to identify an optimal communication plan for transmitting the wireless communications on behalf of a set of connected vehicles; and a cloud server that executes a communication plan by actually transmitting the wireless communications to the various intended recipients of these wireless communications where the intended recipients are specified by the original vehicle.”.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Merlin-A with the teachings of Han in order to provide for optimization of communications by terminals/stations/UEs/etc. through use of virtualized simulations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to + whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 D 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461