DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: the phrases “correct a reception time of the downlink packets to a reception time at the communication link level processed by the second processor by subtracting a processing and transmission time of the packets by the second processor” and “identify a corrected traffic pattern corrected from the identified traffic pattern by estimating TWT SPs at the communication link level” in claim 2 (and the analogous limitation in claim 13) are unclear. For example, the scope of the phrase “correct a reception time” in context with the rest of the phrase is not clear. Is the reception time the time at which the packet is received at the first processor? How is the reception time incorrect? Similarly, is the identified traffic pattern incorrect?
Further, what is the processing and transmission time subtracted from? It appears that the intent is to enable the first processor to obtain an estimate of the time the packet is received at the second processor by using the processing and transmission time (and later the inter packet time) based on the time the first processor receives a packet. This phrase should be reworded to more directly describe the function performed.
Further, it is unclear how corrected traffic pattern in the phrase “identify a corrected traffic pattern corrected from the identified traffic pattern by estimating TWT SPs at the communication link level” is utilized in the claim to identify the second TWT parameter used to renegotiate the TWT agreement. This phrase should be updated to clarify how this corrected (or updated) traffic pattern is utilized.
Regarding claim 3: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
The phrase “designate a first inter packet time satisfying a condition being larger than a threshold value as a reference range” is unclear. That is, how is a first inter packet time designated as a reference range? Further, does “satisfying a condition being larger than a threshold value” mean that the first inter packet time is larger than the threshold?
The connection between the various “TWT SPs” is unclear. How does the first TWT SP and the second TWT SP relate to the TWT SP in claim 1? How do the other TWT SPs (“one TWT SP”, “the TWT SP”) relate to these three TWT SPs?
The phrase “determine a first packet to a last packet at a time point at which the condition in which the inter packet time is larger than the threshold value is not satisfied as packets included in one TWT SP” is unclear. What does “determine a first packet to a last packet at a time point” mean? What does it mean to “determine…packets included in one TWT SP”? Which TWT SP? How does this relate to the renegotiating of the TWT agreement in claim 1?
The phrase “wherein the threshold value is a value obtained by subtracting the TWT SP and a preset first margin from a TWT interval time indicating all intervals before start of a next TWT SP from a time point at which one TWT SP starts” is unclear. What is meant by subtracting a TWT SP and a preset first margin from a TWT interval time? And what is the phrase “from a time point at which one TWT SP starts” relative to? Is this also subtracted from something?
Regarding claim 4: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
The antecedent basis for elements of phrase “in case that the inter packet time of the received packets is larger than the threshold value” is unclear. Is the inter packet time the “first inter packet time” of claim 3? The inter packet time of claim 1? Are they the same?
How does the phrase “correct a time point at which the first processor receives the received packets to the reception time point of the communication link level by subtracting a time required for processing and receiving mac layer data and physical layer data and a time required for receiving payload data from the time point” (and “correct the time point…”) relate to the “correct a reception time…” limitation of claim 2? Are these the same?
How does “a time required for processing…” in claim 4 relate to “a processing time…” in claim 1?
The phrase “the time point” in several locations in claim 4 have unclear antecedent basis. Do they refer to the time point(s) from claim 2 or the time point(s) from earlier in claim 4?
Regarding claim 5: the claim likely needs to be updated based on the changes made in the above claims. Further, it is unclear for the following reasons:
What is the antecedent basis of “the TWT SP”?
How are “transmission intervals” separated between two TWT SPs? Also, are these intervals the scheduled transmission times for the packets?
How does the index “identify the corrected traffic pattern”? Is this transmitted as part of the renegotiation of the TWT agreement?
What are the “skipped TWT SPs”? This should be clarified to determine which device “skipped” the TWT SPs.
Regarding claim 6: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
It is unclear if the “a first condition” is different or the same as the “a condition” in claim 3.
The phrase “subtracting a present second margin from the TWT SP” is unclear. Is the TWT SP referencing the duration of the TWT SP?
It is not clear which previous TWT SP the phrase “the TWT SP” refers to.
How does the “time obtained by subtracting a previous packet time (first packet time) from a current packet time” differ from the various “inter packet times” in the parent claims?
Regarding claim 7: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
See the rejection of claim 5 as similar clarity issues exist here regarding the skipped TWT SPs and indexes of TWT SPs.
Regarding claim 8: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
How does “a threshold value” relate to the “threshold value” instances in parent claims?
The phrase “increase packets received at the inter packet time which does not satisfy the first condition and the second condition in a number of buffered packets (downlink (DL) buffered packet count) and a packet size of the next TWT SP” does not make sense. What is meant by increasing packets at an inter packet time? What is meant by increasing packets in a number of buffered packets? How does the phrase “a packet size of the next TWT SP” relate to the rest of the phase? Is it also increased (“increase packets received…and a packet size…”. Or are the packets increase “in” both the number of buffered packets and the packet size (“increase packets received…in a number of buffered packets…and a packet size”)?
Regarding claim 9: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
How does “the threshold value” relate to the “threshold value” instances in parent claims?
What is meant by a TWT SP that does not end?
How does “a packet size” relate to the “packet size” instances in parent claims?
Regarding claim 10: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
How does “a packet size” relate to the “packet size” instances in parent claims?
It is unclear how recording the number of uplink packets and a packet size is used to estimate the TWT interval and the TWT SP of the communication link level. Further, is the TWT interval of the communication link level, or just the TWT SP?
How does the estimated TWT SP (which in claim 1 appears to be “of a communication link level…”) differ from the estimated TWT SP of the communication link level? How is this estimated TWT SP used to estimate the (same) TWT SP?
Regarding claim 11: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
The phrase “a packet size” appears on both line 6 and lines 8-9. How do these two packet sizes differ and/or relate to one another?
The phrase “a TWT SP start time to a last time point” is unclear.
How are the “TWT usage characteristics” integrated into the device and used in the renegotiation?
Regarding claims 14 and 15: the claims are unclear for reasons similar to those discussed in the analogous claims above.
Examiner Note: The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above do not necessarily cover all reasons the claims are indefinite. Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully reword all claim limitations to ensure consistency (removing any antecedent basis concerns) and to ensure the intended scope of the claims is clear.
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 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2020/0137612) in view of Kang et al (US 2018/0288702) in view of Wang et al (US 2018/0302930).
Regarding claim 1: Li discloses an electronic device comprising:
a first processor (see CPU 210 of Figure 2 or processor 1004 of Figure 10, for example);
a communication module comprising a second processor (see communication interface 230 of Figure 2 or 1024 of Figure 10, for example; as indicated in [0032], for example, “communication interface 230 can include processors, controllers”); and
a memory, wherein the memory comprises instructions causing the first processor to (see memory 250 of Figure 2 or 1008 and 1010 of Figure 10, for example):
control the communication module to transmit and receive data to and from an access point (AP) according to a target wake time (TWT) agreement based on a first TWT parameter in communication with the access point (disclosed throughout; see [0022], for example, which discloses that “the station can be awake during the scheduled periods to transmit and/or receive the packets” based on a TWT schedule/agreement between the AP and the STA; see also [0038], which discloses that the TWT schedule (based on at least one of the parameters in the TWT element) indicates the time(s) for the STA to transmit/receive packets),
identify a traffic pattern (see step 804 of Figure 8, for example; the information associated with the traffic includes “traffic pattern information” as indicated in [0067])
estimate a TWT interval and a TWT service period (SP) of a communication link level processed by the second processor using the identified traffic pattern (see [0040] and Figure 4, for example, which indicates that the TWT scheme includes TWT service periods 403 and TWT repetition intervals 407; as indicated in step 806 of Figure 8 and [0068], the traffic information (including the traffic pattern) is used to configure a TWT scheme including the duration of the service period and the repetition interval),
(see step 808 of Figure 8 and [0068]-[0070], for example; the station determines the parameters to include in the TWT element for configuring the interval and service period determined based on the traffic pattern), and
perform control to (see steps 808 and 810 of Figure 8, for example, which disclose that the station exchanges the TWT element and other signaling with the AP to negotiate the TWT scheme based on the traffic pattern).
Li does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the traffic pattern is identified by monitoring at least one of downlink packets received from the second processor or uplink packets transferred to the second processor or the limitation that the TWT agreement is renegotiated by updating the first TWT parameter to a second TWT parameter.
However, Kang discloses analogous art that uses TWT and other power save modes. Kang further discloses “a communication device (e.g., a station, a user equipment, a wireless device) adapted for dynamic power saving monitors traffic of the communication device and determines a traffic pattern during a specific time” in [0040]. See also [0052]-[0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li based on the teaching of Kang to determine the traffic pattern based on monitoring traffic (including at least one or downlink packets or uplink packets. In the combination, this traffic monitoring includes packets exchange between the first processor and the second processor of Li as the processor that performs the traffic pattern determination receives/transmits these packets from/to the communication interface. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the power saving mode (including the TWT) to be dynamically changed based on the real-time traffic pattern as suggested by Kang.
Further, Wang (in analogous art including TWT configuration) discloses in [0068] that the station “may renegotiate the TWT (e.g., when a traffic pattern changes)”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li, modified, based on the teaching of Wang to renegotiate the TWT parameters when the traffic pattern changes, thus updating the TWT parameters in the TWT element based on the new traffic pattern. The rationale for doing so would have been to reflect the latest traffic pattern information in the TWT scheme by renegotiating with the AP when the traffic pattern changes as suggested by Wang.
Regarding claim 12: Li discloses a method of controlling a target wake time (TWT) by an electronic device, the method comprising:
controlling a communication module to transmit and receive data to and from an access point according to a target wake time (TWT) agreement based on a first TWT parameter by a first processor (disclosed throughout; see [0022], for example, which discloses that “the station can be awake during the scheduled periods to transmit and/or receive the packets” based on a TWT schedule/agreement between the AP and the STA; see also [0038], which discloses that the TWT schedule (based on at least one of the parameters in the TWT element) indicates the time(s) for the STA to transmit/receive packets);
transmitting and receiving communication data to and from a second processor included in the communication module during communication with an access point (AP) (see communication interface 230 of Figure 2 or 1024 of Figure 10, for example; as indicated in [0032], for example, “communication interface 230 can include processors, controllers”; as indicated in Figures 2 and 10 and [0032], packets transmitted/received by the processors 210 of 1004 utilize communication interface 230 of 1024 by transmitting the packets over the bus/communication infrastructure);
identifying a traffic pattern (see step 804 of Figure 8, for example; the information associated with the traffic includes “traffic pattern information” as indicated in [0067])
estimating a TWT interval and a TWT service period (SP) of a communication link level processed by the second processor using the identified traffic pattern (see [0040] and Figure 4, for example, which indicates that the TWT scheme includes TWT service periods 403 and TWT repetition intervals 407; as indicated in step 806 of Figure 8 and [0068], the traffic information (including the traffic pattern) is used to configure a TWT scheme including the duration of the service period and the repetition interval);
(see step 808 of Figure 8 and [0068]-[0070], for example; the station determines the parameters to include in the TWT element for configuring the interval and service period determined based on the traffic pattern); and
performing control to (see steps 808 and 810 of Figure 8, for example, which disclose that the station exchanges the TWT element and other signaling with the AP to negotiate the TWT scheme based on the traffic pattern).
Li does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the traffic pattern is identified by monitoring at least one of downlink packets received from the second processor or uplink packets transferred to the second processor or the limitation that the TWT agreement is renegotiated by updating the first TWT parameter to a second TWT parameter.
However, Kang discloses analogous art that uses TWT and other power save modes. Kang further discloses “a communication device (e.g., a station, a user equipment, a wireless device) adapted for dynamic power saving monitors traffic of the communication device and determines a traffic pattern during a specific time” in [0040]. See also [0052]-[0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li based on the teaching of Kang to determine the traffic pattern based on monitoring traffic (including at least one or downlink packets or uplink packets. In the combination, this traffic monitoring includes packets exchange between the first processor and the second processor of Li as the processor that performs the traffic pattern determination receives/transmits these packets from/to the communication interface. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the power saving mode (including the TWT) to be dynamically changed based on the real-time traffic pattern as suggested by Kang.
Further, Wang (in analogous art including TWT configuration) discloses in [0068] that the station “may renegotiate the TWT (e.g., when a traffic pattern changes)”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li, modified, based on the teaching of Wang to renegotiate the TWT parameters when the traffic pattern changes, thus updating the TWT parameters in the TWT element based on the new traffic pattern. The rationale for doing so would have been to reflect the latest traffic pattern information in the TWT scheme by renegotiating with the AP when the traffic pattern changes as suggested by Wang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhanage et al (US 2020/0280950) discloses a method for synchronizing target wake time with a scanning window.
Xiao et al (US 2019/0253967) discloses a method for managing target wake time scheduling using congestion metrics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 February 4, 2026