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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-4, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macro [US 2017/0070435] in view of Wippenbeck [US 5546389].
As claims 1 and 13, Macro [US 2017/0070435] discloses a method at a first wireless device, comprising: enqueuing high-priority data into an input queue [Fig 4, Ref 418, a high priority packet is inserted into transmit queue, Fig 3, the high priority of ref 323 forwards to transmit queue 324]; selectively enqueuing low-priority data into the input queue based on a current volume of data in the input queue [Fig 4, Ref 418, a low priority packet is insert into transmit queue based on a volume of data in the transmit queue, Par. 0045, Fig 3, low priority of Ref 322 inserts into Ref 324 based on the stored volume of Ref 324], dequeuing data from the input queue for application of one or more pre-transmission processes prior to wirelessly transmitting the dequeued data for receipt by a second wireless device [Fig 3, the packets in the transmit queue 324 is dequeued into PDCP for pre-processing prior transmitting to destination device]. However, Macro fails to disclose selectively enqueuing the low-priority data includes: initiating enqueuing of low-priority data into the input queue responsive to the current volume of data meeting a first criteria and ceasing enqueuing of low-priority data into the input queue responsive to the current volume of data meeting a second criteria. In the same field on endeavor, Wippenbeck [US 5546389] discloses selectively enqueuing the low-priority data includes: initiating enqueuing of low-priority data into the input queue responsive to the current volume of data meeting a first criteria [Col. 1:64-3:2, if queue length meet lower priority threshold, then enqueueing the packet, Col. 2:25-40] and ceasing enqueuing of low-priority data into the input queue responsive to the current volume of data meeting a second criteria [Col. 1:64-3:2 discloses if queue length meet higher threshold then dropping “ceasing” packet, Col. 2:25-40].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for enqueuing or ceasing the enqueueing packet based on the queue length as disclosed by Wippenbeck [US 5546389] into the teaching of Macro. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 2, Wippenbeck [US 5546389] discloses the first criteria includes the current volume of data falling to a first threshold [Col. 1:64-3:2, queue length less than lower threshold].
As claim 3, Wippenbeck [US 5546389] discloses the second criteria includes the current volume of data rising to a second threshold, the second threshold greater than the first threshold [Col. 2:25-40, Higher threshold is greater than lower threshold so, queue length increases to higher from lower].
As claim 16, Wippenbeck [US 5546389] discloses the first criteria includes the current volume of data falling to a first threshold [Col. 1:64-3:2, queue length less than min threshold]; and the second criteria includes the current volume of data rising to a second threshold, the second threshold greater than the first threshold [Col. 2:25-40, Higher threshold is greater than lower threshold so, queue length increases to higher from lower].
As claims 4 and 17, Wippenbeck [US 5546389] discloses the determining a current efficiency of data transmission from the first wireless device to the second wireless device [Col. 3:12-21 discloses adjusting threshold based on output traffic and input traffic]; and dynamically adjusting at least one of the first threshold or the second threshold based on the current efficiency [Col. 3:12-21 discloses adjusting threshold based on output traffic and input traffic].
As claims 9 and 21, Wippenbeck [US 5546389] discloses the second criteria includes the current volume of data rising to a threshold [Col. 2:25-40, Higher threshold is greater than lower threshold so, queue length increases to higher from lower].
As claim 11, Macro discloses buffering low-priority data in a low-priority queue prior to enqueuing the low-priority data into the input queue [Fig 3, Ref 322].
As claim 14, Macro discloses the wireless device is a user equipment (UE) of a cellular network [Fig 1, Ref 110].
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macro [US 2017/0070435] in view of Wippenbeck [US 5546389] as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Iwamura [US 2012/0195273].
As claims 5 and 18, Macro and Wippenbeck fail to disclose what Iwamura [US 2012/0195273] determining the current efficiency of data transmission includes monitoring a use of padding in the data transmission from the first wireless device to the second wireless device [Par. 0039 discloses if padding in the buffer mean input traffic is not efficient to output].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for determining the padding in the buffer in order to determine input traffic as disclosed by Iwamura [US 2012/0195273] into the teaching of Macro [US 2017/0070435] in view of Wippenbeck [US 5546389]. The motivation would have been to optimize the system.
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macro [US 2017/0070435] in view of Wippenbeck [US 5546389] as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Billuri [US 2022/0150173];
As claims 10 and 22, Macro discloses the one or more pre-transmission processes include at least a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) process [Fig 3, Ref 330]. And ARQ or Harq [Par. 0023]. However, Macro and Wippenbeck fail to disclose what Billuri [US 2022/0150173] discloses the high-priority data includes at least one of acknowledgement packets [Par. 0098], Domain Name Service (DNS) data, or Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) data [Par. 0107, PING is ICMP];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for using PING as priority data as disclosed by Billuri [US 2022/0150173] into the teaching of Macro [US 2017/0070435] in view of Wippenbeck [US 5546389]. The motivation would have been to maintain the quality of system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As claims 6 and 19, The prior arts in the record fail to disclose monitoring a use of padding in the data transmission includes determining a current padding ratio representing a ratio of transmission padding to total uplink data; and dynamically adjusting at least one of the first threshold or the second threshold includes: increasing at least one of the first threshold or the second threshold when the current padding ratio meets a third criteria; and decreasing at least one of the first threshold or the second threshold when the current padding ratio meets a fourth criteria.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414