DETAILED ACTIONStatus of the Claims
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 04/28/2026.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but are respectfully found to be not persuasive for at least the following reason(s).
In regard to applicant’s remarks 04/28/2026 (Remarks, Pages 1-4), regarding the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 with regards to claims 1-8 and 10, applicant asserts that:
Regarding Claim 1
…Embodiments of the present invention makes it possible to guarantee that stations connected to an access point of a node do not suffer an artifact in a communication when a handover of the station is implemented (see page 2, lines 17-19). Claim 1 thus aims to solve the specific technical problem of ensuring "Quality of Service" (QoS) during a handover for an active client session. It achieves this by characterizing the nature of each data stream passing between the station and the access point-specifically, whether it is "interruptible" or "non- interruptible"-by calculating and analyzing the mean quantity of data flowing through it. The idea is to allow the handover ("determining that the station served by the access point can be served by another access point") only if none of the data streams are sensitive to interruptions, i.e., if none of the data streams are "non-interruptible." In other words, the handover is permitted only if each of the data streams is "interruptible."
PANDEY, in contrast, addresses a completely different technical problem: optimizing the initial network discovery and connection process for new clients. PANDEY teaches calculating the mean number of "first-time associations" to identify high-traffic ingress points (see Abstract and §[0023]). The goal is to adjust the rate of discovery frames to manage the efficiency and speed of new clients connecting to the network. PANDEY is concerned with the onboarding process, not with managing the QoS of an already-established session during a mobility event (handover). The table below summarizes the fact that claim 1 and PANDEY use a statistic, and more specifically the calculation of a mean, to solve fundamentally different technical problems:
Claim 1
PANDEY
Objective
To characterize the nature of an already-established data stream.
To identify the access points (APs) that handle a large number of new clients.
Metric
The quantity of data transiting through this stream.
The number of "first-time associations".
Finality
To determine if the stream is sensitive to an interruption (i.e. is non-interruptible, like VoIP) or if it can tolerate it (i.e. is interruptible, like video streaming with a buffer). The final goal is to guarantee the Quality of Service (QoS) of an active session during a handover.
To optimize the efficiency of network discovery by new clients, notably by adjusting the sending frequency of "discovery frames".
A person of ordinary skill in the art, when faced with the problem described in FREDA (namely, "how to make a better mobility decision for a connected station to preserve session quality"), would have had no reason or motivation to turn to PANDEY:
a) The technical problems are distinct: PANDEY's teaching on calculating the mean number of initial associations (i.e., the number of new connections) provides no suggestion or indication on how to characterize the nature of data within an existing stream (e.g., its stability or sensitivity to interruption). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill, seeking to improve FREDA's method ("how to secure a handover for an active session"), would focus on solutions related to QoS, real-time packet analysis, or multimedia stream characterization. They would not naturally be led to seek solutions in the field of optimizing the initial connection of new clients, which is the subject of PANDEY. b) The application of the mean is not transposable: The metrics are unrelated (number of initial associations in PANDEY VS. quantity of data per stream in claim 1), and the technical objectives are distinct (connection efficiency in PANDEY VS. handover QoS in claim 1). The metric being averaged in Pandey (the number of initial associations, i.e. the number of new clients) has no direct link with the nature (interruptible or not) of a data stream for an already- connected client. Knowing that an access point connects 50 new clients per minute provides no information as to whether a connected client's data stream is "non-interruptible" (e.g., if it is a phone call) or "interruptible" (e.g., if it is a file download). c) The Examiner's attack relies on impermissible hindsight (ex post facto reconstruction): The Examiner's argument that a person of ordinary skill would have simply taken the "mean" calculation from PANDEY and applied it to the "quantity of data" from FREDA is an impermissible hindsight analysis. The Examiner is improperly using the present application's own disclosure as a roadmap. Without the teaching of the present application, there is no logical bridge between the problem solved by PANDEY and the problem solved by the claimed invention. In other words, without the teaching of the present application, there is no logical reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to take the idea from PANDEY ("let's average the number of initial associations") and say to himself: "I will apply this principle, but by changing the metric to the quantity of data, in order to solve FREDA's problem regarding handover security." For these reasons, the combination of FREDA and PANDEY does not render claim 1 obvious. The Applicant therefore respectfully requests the withdrawal of the obviousness objection to claim 1 in view of the combination of FREDA and PANDEY.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2-7 …[C]laims 2 and 4 introduce the calculation of a score based on the standard deviation from the measurements for the considered stream, a further level of analysis not envisioned by the cited prior art.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, however found to be not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In regards to the Applicant’s assertions that the secondary reference, Pandey, addresses a technical problem which is distinct; and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason or motivation to combine the teachings of Freda and Pandey (Remarks, Pages 1-2, Section ‘Regarding Claim 1’; Pages 3-4, Sections a and c), Applicant’s arguments focus primarily on Pandey in isolation while overlooking the teachings of the primary reference, Freda. Freda discloses methods for conditionally performing mobility actions in wireless communication networks based on an evaluation of communication traffic information (e.g., traffic load/type, buffer conditions, QoS conditions, QoS streams, latency, measured throughput, for example, thresholds) associated with active wireless communications (Freda, Pages 20-30, Paragraphs 88-112, evaluation of communication traffic information; Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90-91, configuration relating to a combination of conditions; Page 30, Paragraphs 111-112, mobility action triggered by different condition/value/threshold depending on the value of another metric/condition).
The secondary reference Pandey discloses calculating statistical averaging values from measured network information (e.g., mean, median, median absolute deviation, standard deviation) and comparing these calculated values alongside threshold comparisons in order to make optimal determinations for guiding network operations (e.g., determine APs of interest) (Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 22-29, calculating multiple statistical quantities [e.g., mean, median, median absolute deviation, standard deviation]; Paragraphs 23-29, guiding network operations, statistical values, threshold comparisons).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Freda, wherein the occurrence of mobility actions are determined based on evaluation of communication traffic characteristics, with the method of Pandey for determining network operations based on calculations and analysis of statistically processed measured network parameters because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Using statistical processing techniques rather than instantaneous measurements is a well-known technique for reducing transient fluctuations in measured parameters. Applying Pandey’s statistical techniques to the communication traffic information of Freda would improve the stability of Freda’s mobility decision determinations. This known benefit is applicable to Freda as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the same field of network topologies and hand-off or reselection arrangements in wireless communication networks. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Freda’s mobility decision method to include the method for statistical processing of measured network information of Pandey because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate the statistical calculations of Pandey in the multi-parameter-capable mobility action determination method of Freda (Freda, Pages 25-26 and 30, Paragraph 90-91 and 111-112, configuration relating to a combination of conditions) and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, regarding Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s has employed impermissible hindsight to construct the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 with the inclusion of the cited reference Pandey, the Examiner disagrees. The proposed combination merely applies Pandey’s known statistical processing techniques applied to Freda’s existing traffic measurements in order to improve the stability of Freda’s mobility determinations. Such a modification represents the predictable application of one known analytical technique of measured network information to another known network management process and does not rely upon Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap. "In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention". In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that 'same field of endeavor' and 'reasonably pertinent' are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art." See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. See also MPEP 2141.01(I)(A). The cited reference, Pandey, and the claimed invention are directed to the same field of network traffic management, network resource management in wireless communication networks. Therefore, the proposed combination would have been obvious as there is a reasonable expectation of success and because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to the assertion that the application of the mean is not transposable (Remarks, Pages 3-4, Section b), Applicant argues that the claimed invention uniquely determines whether a communication stream is inherently interruptible, which is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The Examiner gives the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language it light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 1-4 of the examined disclosure define a interruptible data stream solely according to the outcome of the claimed statistical calculations and threshold comparisons. Accordingly, the claimed characterization of an interruptible data stream and a non-interruptible data stream merely represent labels assigned to streams after statistical processing of measured communication data.
Freda discloses a configurable method for triggering conditions for mobility actions, wherein a trigger condition can be based on a threshold compared to a determined averaged value (Freda, Pages 20-25, Paragraphs 88-89, e.g., average of data streams below a threshold, which makes the streams implicitly interruptible). As described previously, Pandey demonstrates the known benefit of statistically processing measured network parameters using average, standard deviations, and threshold-based analysis (Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 22-29, calculating multiple statistical quantities). The particular network parameter subjected to statistical processing would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending upon the network management function. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the disclosed conditional mobility triggering method of Freda in view of Pandey can be interpreted as determining whether or not a stream can be interrupted when associated with a threshold comparison.
In regards to the assertation that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest “…calculation of a score based on the standard deviation from the measurements for the considered stream” as introduced in claims 2 and 4 (Remarks, Pages 3-4, Section ‘Regarding Dependent Claims 2-7’), the claimed characterization of an interruptible data stream and a non-interruptible data stream merely represent labels assigned to streams after statistical processing of measured communication data. Therefore, the disclosed conditional mobility triggering method of Freda in view of Pandey can be interpreted as determining whether or not a stream can be interrupted when associated with a threshold comparison (Examiner’s Response, Section b).
Freda discloses performing a mobility action a selected candidate parent node based on evaluating communication traffic information (e.g., traffic load, latency, buffer information, QoS characteristics, bearer information, measured throughput) over observation periods (Freda, Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90-91, configuration relating to a combination of conditions; Page 37, Paragraph 142) while Pandey discloses deriving network control parameters as functions of statistical quantities (Pandey, Paragraphs 22-27, ratios, functions comprising measures of central tendency, deviation; Pandey expressly states “other similar statistical techniques are within the scope” in Paragraph 23). Selecting a particular mathematical relationship among known statistical parameters (mean, deviation) would have been considered routine optimization in the absence of evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this claimed expression over other known statistical combinations. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, determining whether a stream is interruptible based on the claimed statistical quantities over predetermined periods of time and with predetermined periodicity would have represented no more than the routine implementation of the combined teaching of Freda in view of Pandey.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior arts of record, Freda in view of Pandey, with regards to claims 1-8 and 10 are remained proper and therefore maintained.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda et al., WO 2022 087208 A1 (hereinafter “Freda”) in view of Pandey et al., US 2016 0286436 A1 (hereinafter “Pandey”).
Regarding Claim 1, Freda teaches a method for categorizing data streams passing between a station and an access point serving the station to determine whether the station served by the access point can change access point serving it, the access point being included in a node forming part of a local area network comprising a plurality of nodes allowing an extension of wireless communication coverage in order to increase the range of the local area network by coordinating a plurality of access points incorporated in the nodes (Freda, Page 4, Paragraph 22, Fig. 1A, base station 114b, local area network, plurality of wireless transmit/receive units [WTRU] 102a-d), wherein the method comprises the steps, performed by the access point serving at least one station, of:
-identifying, from an identifier of the source and/or from the destination of the data, each data stream passing between the station and the access point (Freda, Page 17, Paragraph 78, traffic flow, control information; Page 20, Paragraphs 88-89. IAB node, candidate parent node, current serving node),
-measuring, for each data stream, the quantity of data passing between the station and the access point (Freda, Page 20, Paragraph 88, traffic load information, flow control metric[s]),
-calculating, for each data stream, a mean from the measurements for the stream (Freda discloses methods for conditionally performing mobility actions in wireless communication networks based on an evaluation of communication traffic information [e.g., traffic load/type, buffer conditions, QoS conditions, QoS flow, latency, measured throughput, for example, thresholds] associated with active wireless communications on Pages 20-30, Paragraphs 88-112, evaluation of communication traffic information; Page 20-25, Paragraphs 88-89, conditions based on flow control, traffic load information, measurements over a time period; Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90-91, configuration relating to a combination of conditions; Page 30, Paragraphs 111-112, mobility action triggered by different condition/value/threshold depending on the value of another metric/condition),
-categorizing each data stream as an interruptible data stream if the mean of the data streams is lower than a first predetermined threshold (Freda, Page 22-23, Paragraph 89, information received from parent nodes; Paragraph 89, WTRU may be configured with a condition on the buffer sized associated with given BH RLC channel, mobility action triggered when UL buffer size of the BH RLC channel above/below certain threshold, e.g., average of data streams below a threshold, which makes the streams implicitly interruptible),
-determining that the station served by the access point can be served by another access point if each stream passing between the station and the access point is categorized as an interruptible data stream (Freda, Freda, Pages 20-25, Paragraphs 88-89, e.g., average of data streams below a threshold, which makes the streams implicitly interruptible; Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90, mobility action upon fulfillment of triggering condition[s]).
Freda fails to fully teach the limitations:
calculating, for each data stream, a mean from the measurements for the stream (Freda does not disclose calculating a mean from the measurements for the stream in the disclosed mobility decision method)
However, Pandey further teaches the limitation:
calculating, for each data stream, a mean from the measurements for the stream (Pandey, Page 1, Paragraph 10-12, Fig. 1, access points 115a-d, network 110; Pandey discloses calculating statistical averaging values from measured network information [e.g., mean, median, median absolute deviation, standard deviation] and comparing these calculated values alongside threshold comparisons in order to make optimal determinations for guiding network operations [e.g., determine APs of interest], Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 22-29, calculating multiple statistical quantities [e.g., mean, median, median absolute deviation, standard deviation]; guiding network operations, statistical values, threshold comparisons; Paragraph 23, statistical techniques applied over a predetermined time period, predetermined thresholds)
Pandey and Freda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of network topology of wireless local area networks. While Freda demonstrates calculation of stream measurements as a function of time, Pandey expands on this limitation of the applied algorithm in regards to the calculated mean. At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Freda, wherein the occurrence of mobility actions are determined based on evaluation of communication traffic characteristics, with the method of Pandey for determining network operations based on calculations and analysis of statistically processed measured network parameters because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Using statistical processing techniques rather than instantaneous measurements is a well-known technique for reducing transient fluctuations in measured parameters. Applying Pandey’s statistical techniques to the communication traffic information of Freda would improve the stability of Freda’s mobility decision determinations. This known benefit is applicable to Freda as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the same field of network topologies and hand-off or reselection arrangements in wireless communication networks. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Freda’s mobility decision method to include the method for statistical processing of measured network information of Pandey because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate the statistical calculations of Pandey in the multi-parameter-capable mobility action determination method of Freda (Freda, Pages 25-26 and 30, Paragraph 90-91 and 111-112, configuration relating to a combination of conditions) and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the claim element “an interruptible data stream”, the Examiner gives the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language it light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 1-4 of the examined disclosure define an interruptible data stream solely according to the outcome of the claimed statistical calculations and threshold comparisons. Accordingly, the claimed characterization of an interruptible data stream and a non-interruptible data stream merely represent labels assigned to streams after statistical processing of measured communication data. As described previously, Pandey demonstrates the known benefit of statistically processing measured network parameters using average, standard deviations, and threshold-based analysis (Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 22-29, calculating multiple statistical quantities; Freda, Pages 20-25, Paragraphs 88-89, e.g., average of data streams below a threshold, which makes the streams implicitly interruptible). The particular network parameter subjected to statistical processing would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending upon the network management function. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the disclosed conditional mobility triggering method of Freda in view of Pandey can be interpreted as determining whether or not a stream can be interrupted when associated with a threshold comparison.
Regarding Claim 2, Freda in view of Pandey teaches the method according to method according claim 1, the method further comprises the steps performed, if the mean of at least one data stream is higher than the first predetermined threshold, of:
-calculating, for each data stream the mean of which is higher than or equal to the first predetermined threshold, a standard deviation from the measurements for the stream (Freda, Page 25, Paragraph 92, Fig. 4, conditional handover),
-calculating, for each data stream the mean of which is higher than or equal to the first predetermined threshold, a score from the mean and from the standard deviation of the data stream (Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 22-23, standard deviation for each AP, statistical techniques used to determine APs of interest),
-categorizing each data stream the mean of which is higher than the first predetermined threshold as a non-interruptible data stream if the score of the data stream is lower than a second predetermined threshold (Freda, Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90; Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 22-23),
-determining that a station served by the access point must not be served by another access point if at least one stream passing between the station and the access point is categorized as a non-interruptible data stream (Freda, Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90, mobility action upon fulfillment of triggering condition[s]; Pandey, Page 3, Paragraph 24, Subset of APs managed and optimized).
Regarding Claim 3, Freda teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises the steps of:
-categorizing each data stream the mean of which is higher than the first predetermined threshold as an interruptible data stream if the score of the data stream is higher than or equal to a second predetermined threshold (Freda, Page 22, Paragraph 89, information received from parent nodes),
-determining that a station served by the access point can be served by another access point if each stream passing between the station and the access point is categorized as an interruptible data stream (Freda, Page 23, Paragraph 89, WTRU may be configured with a condition on the buffer sized associated with given BH RLC channel, mobility action triggered when UL buffer size of the BH RLC channel above/below certain threshold; Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90, mobility action upon fulfillment of triggering condition[s]).
Regarding Claim 4, Freda in view of Pandey teaches the method according to claim 2. Freda does not teach the method according to claim 4. Pandey teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein each score is calculated using the following formula:
SC(t) = σ(t)/(K+mean(t)) where mean(t) is the mean, SC(t) is the score, σ(t) is the standard deviation and K a value strictly greater than 0 (Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 23, statistical techniques used to determine APs of interest, standard deviation).
Regarding the formula of claim 4, Freda discloses performing a mobility action a selected candidate parent node based on evaluating communication traffic information (e.g., traffic load, latency, buffer information, QoS characteristics, bearer information, measured throughput) over observation periods (Freda, Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90-91, configuration relating to a combination of conditions; Page 37, Paragraph 142) while Pandey discloses deriving network control parameters as functions of statistical quantities (Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 22-27, ratios, functions comprising measures of central tendency, deviation; Pandey expressly states “other similar statistical techniques are within the scope” in Paragraph 23). Selecting a particular mathematical relationship among known statistical parameters (mean, deviation) would have been considered routine optimization in the absence of evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this claimed expression over other known statistical combinations. Therefore, determining whether a stream is interruptible based on the claimed statistical quantities over predetermined periods of time and with predetermined periodicity would have represented no more than the routine implementation of the combined teaching of Freda in view of Pandey.
Regarding Claim 5, Freda in view of Pandey teaches the method according to claim 1. Freda does not teach the method according to claim 5. Pandey teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein each mean is calculated for a first predetermined period of time (Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 23, mean number, predetermined period of time).
Regarding Claim 6, Freda in view of Pandey teaches the method according to claim 2. Freda does not teach the method according to claim 6. Pandey teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein each standard deviation and each score are calculated for the first predetermined period of time (Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 23, time period T, mean number of first-time associations, standard deviation for each AP)
Regarding Claim 7, Freda does not teach the method according to claim 6. Pandey teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein each mean, each standard deviation and each score are calculated with a predetermined periodicity (Pandey, Page 3, Paragraph 25, periodicity calculations).
Regarding Claim 8, Freda in view of Pandey teaches a device for categorizing data streams passing between a station and an access point serving the station to determine whether the station served by the access point can change access point serving it, the access point being included in a node forming part of a local area network comprising a plurality of nodes allowing an extension of wireless communication coverage in order to increase the range of the local area network by coordinating a plurality of access points incorporated in the nodes, (Freda, Page 5, Paragraph 26, Fig. 1B, wireless transmit/receive unit [WTRU]; Pandey, Page 1, Paragraph 10-12, Fig. 1, access points 115a-d, Page 4, Paragraph 36, Fig. 5, access point) wherein the device is included in the access point serving the station, and comprises:
-means for identifying, from an identifier of the source and/or from the destination of the data, each data stream passing between the station and the access point (Freda, Page 17, Paragraph 78, traffic flow, flow control information),
-means for measuring, for each data stream, the quantity of data passing between the station and the access point (Freda, Page 20, Paragraph 88, traffic load information, flow control metric[s]),
-means for calculating, for each data stream, a mean from the measurements for the stream,
-means for categorizing each data stream as an interruptible data stream if the mean of the data streams is lower than a first predetermined threshold (Freda, Page 20-25, Paragraphs 88-89, conditions based on flow control, traffic load information, measurements over a time period; Pandey, Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 22-29, determining APs of interest, statistical techniques applied over a predetermined time period, predetermined thresholds),
-means for determining that the station served by the access point can be served by another access point if each stream passing between the station and the access point is categorized as an interruptible data stream (Freda, Pages 22-23, Paragraph 89; Pages 25-26, Paragraph 90).
Regarding Claim 10, Freda in view of Pandey teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions for implementing, by an item of equipment, the method according to claim 1, when said program is executed by the processor of a node (Freda, Page 5, Paragraph 26, Fig. 1B, wireless transmit/receive unit [WTRU]; Page 6, Paragraph 31, memory; Pandey, Page 4, Paragraph 35, memory 508).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLE N DAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu. 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, AKWASI SARPONG can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/GABRIELLE N DAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2681
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights