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
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, 11-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gegout [US 9379948] in view of Kuusinen [US 9007123].
As claims 1 and 12, Gegout [US 9379948] discloses an electronic device [Fig 2], comprising: a transmitting (TX) delay monitor, configured to calculate a TX delay associated with a TX data packet, and send out delay event [Fig 4, Ref 406 discloses a client device such as Fig 1, Ref 108 and 110 for measuring the RTD and determining if measured RTD is greater than a threshold, Col. 5:45-6:37]; a wireless monitor, configured to receive the TX delay event and send out a warning signal based on the TX delay event [Par. 4, Ref 406 and Col. 5:45-6:37 discloses a client device generates an alarm signal “QOE of client is degraded” based on the RTD is greater than threshold]; and a wireless network environment checker, configured to check network communication environment in response to receiving the warning signal from the wireless monitor [Fig 4, Ref 408-414 discloses after receiving an alarm signal “QOE of client is degraded”, the client device check the wireless network in order to determine which access point is better than the current one, See Table 2, Col. 6:37-7:60 discloses a method for determining the current and expected of access]. However, Gegout [US 9379948] fails to fully send out a TX delay event in response to the TX delay associated with the TX data packet being longer than a predetermined period. In the same field of endeavor, Kuusinen [US 9007123] discloses a TX delay event in response to the TX delay associated with the TX data packet being longer than a predetermined period [Col. 9:53-10:12 discloses terminal for measuring RTT and comparing with threshold if TRD longer than threshold then the link between client and access point is degraded].
Furthermore, without the teaching of Kuusinen [US 9007123] , on of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that Gegout implicitly discloses a TX delay event in response to the TX delay associated with the TX data packet being longer than a predetermined period because a method and system for comparing the measured RTD with threshold to determine degraded link is well known and expected in the art. 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 a TX delay event in response to the TX delay associated with the TX data packet being longer than a predetermined period as disclosed by Kuusinen [US 9007123] into the teaching of Gegout [US 9379948]. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 2, Gegout [US 9379948] discloses the wireless monitor performs a core algorithm to receive and monitor the TX delay event from the TX delay monitor, set parameters of the TX delay monitor, and send the warning signal to the wireless network environment checker based on the TX delay event [Fig 4, Ref 408-414 discloses algorithm to comparing a measured RTD with threshold to generate a signal to request to compute a current and expected QOE to switch to new access point, See Table 1 and 2].
As claim 3, Gegout [US 9379948] discloses the TX delay monitor performs a TX delay monitor driver to calculate the TX delay associated with the TX data packet, and send the TX delay event to the wireless monitor in response to the TX delay associated with the TX data packet being longer than the predetermined period [Table 1 discloses equation for determining the RTD and comparing with threshold to determine if client QOE degraded or not].
As claims 4 and 16, Gegout [US 9379948] discloses the wireless network environment checker checks one or more of wireless signal Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI), network latency, and network bandwidth in response to receiving the warning signal from the wireless monitor [Table 2 discloses bandwidth and RTD of wireless are measured and use to current and expected QOE].
As claims 11 and 18, Gegout [US 9379948] discloses the parameters of the TX delay monitor comprise the predetermined period [Table 1 and 2 discloses predefined RTD].
As claim 17, Gegout [US 9379948] discloses by the wireless monitor, receiving and monitoring the TX delay event from the TX delay monitor [Table 1 and 2, RTD is monitored]; and by the wireless monitor, setting parameters of the TX delay monitor [Table 1 and 2 discloses predefined RTD, PVDmax, bandwidth parameters etc..].
Claim(s) 5-10, 13-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gegout [US 9379948] and Kuusinen [US 9007123] as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Xiao [US 2014/0293790].
As claims 5, 13 and 15, Gegout [US 9379948] and Kuusinen [US 9007123] fails to disclose what Xiao [US 2014/0293790] discloses the TX delay monitor performs a TX delay monitor driver to record a first time point at which the TX data packet is sent to a hardware queue [Par. 0040, 0087-0090 discloses terminal send a probe packet to buffer which is either layer 2 or layer 3 and have transmitting time]; the TX delay monitor performs the TX delay monitor driver to record a second time point at which the TX delay monitor receives an acknowledgement message from a router [Par. 0040, 0087-0090 discloses terminal for receiving ACK packet from access point “router” and record receiving time]; the second time point is later than the first time point [Par. 0040, 0087-0090 discloses transmission time is early than receiving time].
As claim 6, Xiao [US 2014/0293790] discloses the TX delay monitor calculates the TX delay associated with the TX data packet by subtracting the first time point from the second time point [Par. 0088].
As claims 7 and 14, Xiao [US 2014/0293790] discloses the TX delay monitor is comprised in a wireless network device having a hardware queue for preparing to transmit the TX data packet to the router [Par. 0040, 0087 discloses terminal for transmitting packet in the buffer to access point].
As claim 8, Xiao [US 2014/0293790] discloses the acknowledgement message from the router is a layer-2 (L2) acknowledgement message [Par. 0040, 0087 discloses Probe Packet is layer 2 or Layer 3, Par. 0012].
As claim 9, Xiao [US 2014/0293790] discloses the electronic device is connected to a network server through the router [Fig 4, Terminal, AP and server].
As claims 10, and 19-20, Xiao [US 2014/0293790] discloses the TX delay monitor receives an Internet Protocol (IP) packet from the network server at a third time point, and the third time point is later than the second time point [Fig 4, terminal receives IP packet after measured RTT at time later than second time point from a server, Par. 0034, 0070, 0093, 0104-0105].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2/7/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Selvidge [US 2020/0195567] discloses a method and system comprising determining RTD for using to compute coefficient which compares with a threshold. It is greater than threshold than determining network capacity.
Li [US 2009/0164657] discloses a method and system for comparing queue delay with threshold. Based on result, estimate bandwidth.
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
Prosecution Insights