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 .
This action is response to the application filed on 12/18/2023. Claims 1-17 are pending and herein considered. Claims 18-32 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of oath/declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/18/2023. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 12/18/2023 and 12/06/2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, the term "and/or" is unclear whether the respective set of recited features are to be interpreted as mutual exclusive or not, and shall give on negative recited claimed limitation; and the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. These dependent claims may cause the “or” in the corresponding independent claims to be essentially interpreted as an “and” which may be confusing. Examiner suggest clarifying the conjunctions used and/or the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lind van Wijngaarden (US 2012/0210325) in view of Tennan (U.S 2023/0139514).
(Note: For citation purposes, hereinafter, Tennan (PCT/GB2021/050405)) which the PCT filed on 02.18.2021, which qualifies as prior art date).
For claim 1:
de Lind van Wijngaarden discloses a method for communication (see de Lind van Wijngaarden, at least abstract; a method is provided for use in a mobile communication), comprising:
collecting information relating at least to communication of a wireless device over a wireless communication network (see de Lind van Wijngaarden, at least paragraph [0109]; in the mobile operating system. The model may be used to estimate relevant power parameters, and to further enhance the accuracy of the implemented model by collecting historical data on the handset battery with a software module. By using handset-specific battery data);
de Lind van Wijngaarden does not explicitly disclose: maintaining, based on the collected information, an energy-prediction model that predicts amounts of energy needed in the wireless device for performing communication operations in the wireless communication network; for a communication operation that is to be performed by the wireless device in the wireless communication network, scheduling, based on the energy-prediction model, a time at which the communication operation will be performed; and performing the communication operation at the scheduled time.
Tennan, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses what de Lind van Wijngaarden fails: determining an amount of energy to be obtained from the distribution grid comprises determining the amount such that the energy obtained from the distribution grid and the energy obtained from the renewable energy sources as determined from the prediction of renewable energy availability together meet the predicted energy demand (see Tennan, at least paragraph [0014]-[0016]; and determining the predicted energy availability value for the given time based on past observed energy availability values associated with the identified bucket: [0024]-[0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Tennan. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks improving where can
also allow battery health to be improved.
For claim 2:
In addition to rejection in claim 2, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan further discloses wherein performing the communication operations comprises communicating messages over the wireless communication network (see de Lind van Wijngaarden, at least paragraph [0155]: The scheduler may send the user a warning message if it determines that it is not advisable to run the task because, for example, the battery power is below the minimum threshold or the communication resources are below the required threshold. The user may then decide to bypass the power-aware part of the scheduler and force the mobile to perform the task).
For claim 5:
In addition to rejection in claim 5, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan further discloses wherein performing the communication operations comprises setting a modem of the wireless device to a sleep period (see de Lind van Wijngaarden, at least paragraph [0009] larger mobile terminals such as laptops and notebooks typically have a power management function that warns the user when power is low. The power management function may take steps to save data so that an orderly shutdown of the system can be accomplished).
For claim 6:
In addition to rejection in claim 6, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan further discloses wherein scheduling the time comprises deciding on the time in accordance with a scheduling policy that aims at least to maximize a lifetime of a battery of the wireless device (see de Lind van Wijngaarden , at least paragraph [0073] The battery power monitor tracks the mobile terminal's battery status and aids in maximizing the battery life. Maximizing the life of the battery is an important design criterion for mobile handsets. That is, batteries exhibit nonlinear behavior during individual discharge cycles. Nonlinear behavior is also observed in the storage efficiency throughout the battery lifecycle. Batteries tend to deliver a less robust charge after each subsequent charge cycle because of irreversible physical and chemical changes).
For claim 7:
In addition to rejection in claim 7, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan further discloses wherein collecting the information comprises collecting information relating to a battery of the wireless device; wherein maintaining the energy-prediction model comprises predicting, based on the information relating to the battery, an effective energy capacity remaining in the battery following the communication operation; and wherein scheduling the time depends on the effective energy capacity (see Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan, at least paragraph [0003]; mobile terminals have a small form factor, which puts limitations on the size and shape of the battery. Even though current mobile terminals have a powerful battery, their capability of simultaneously running various applications, including real-time applications such as online games and streaming video and audio, imposes considerable restrictions on the amount of time that a mobile terminal can remain operational without recharging).
For claim 8:
In addition to rejection in claim 8, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan further discloses wherein scheduling the time comprises deciding whether to perform the communication operation in a current time period or to defer a decision on performing the communication operation to a later time period (see Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan, at least paragraph [0133]; exploit the ability to select energy sources. In particular, the energy conservation strategy or load shedding strategy that is generated may include instructions to switch one or more loads from battery supply to grid supply (e.g. at one or more determined future times).
For claim 10:
In addition to rejection in claim 10, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan further disclose wherein maintaining the energy-prediction model is performed in the wireless device (see de Lind van Wijngaarden, at least paragraph [0126]; another estimation technique that is useful in this regard has been proposed for estimating the energy cost of applications running on a portable wireless device).
For claim 11:
In addition to rejection in claim 11, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan further disclose wherein maintaining the energy-prediction model is performed in a server that communicates with the wireless device over the wireless communication network (see de Lind van Wijngaarden, at least paragraph [0146]; one or more servers within the network may provide information about the mobile terminal's battery power and application profile to the power aware task scheduler. (In particular, a battery model may be implemented in such a server within the network).
For claim 16:
In addition to rejection in claim 16, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan further disclose reporting, based on the collected information, an anomality or a statistical information regarding the battery (see de Lind van Wijngaarden, at least paragraph [0042]; other usage statistics such as the number of charge/discharge cycles, the age of the battery).
For claim 17:
For claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a communication apparatus which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lind van Wijngaarden (US 2012/0210325) in view of Tennan (U.S 2023/0139514) further in view of Menon et al. (U.S 2022/0345998).
(Note: For citation purposes, hereinafter, Tennan (PCT/GB2021/050405)) which the PCT filed on 02.18.2021, which qualifies as prior art date).
For claim 3:
In addition to rejection in claim 3, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan does not explicitly disclose wherein performing the communication operations comprises scanning for availability of the wireless communication network.
Menon, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan fails: performance of operations, the operations comprising: establishing a wireless service connection; subsequent to the establishing of the wireless service connection, scanning for an availability of public land mobile networks (PLMNs) (see Menon, at least claim 1, paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Menon. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to optimize space usage or enhance performance of user equipment.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lind van Wijngaarden (US 2012/0210325) in view of Tennan (U.S 2023/0139514) further in view of Mouffok (U.S 2022/0104130).
(Note: For citation purposes, hereinafter, Tennan (PCT/GB2021/050405)) which the PCT filed on 02.18.2021, which qualifies as prior art date).
For claim 4:
In addition to rejection in claim 4, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan does not explicitly disclose wherein performing the communication operations comprises waking-up a modem of the wireless device and receiving signal by the modem.
Mouffok, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan fails: the modem 102 informs other modems 102 in the network of the decision to transition to the DCAM and first modem 102 can send a wake up message to a second modem 102 if the first modem 102 detects a pattern of acquired data indicating that the second modem 102 will be needed in the routing path (see Mouffork, at least paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Mouffok. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve in the acoustic noise level indicating that communications can be reliably resumed.
For claim 13:
In addition to rejection in claim 13, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan does not explicitly disclose wherein collecting the information comprises waking-up a modem of the wireless device, and/or of one or more additional wireless devices, to collect the information in one or more dedicated wake- up periods, which are dedicated for maintaining the energy-prediction model.
Mouffok, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan fails: the modem 102 informs other modems 102 in the network of the decision to transition to the DCAM and first modem 102 can send a wake up message to a second modem 102 if the first modem 102 detects a pattern of acquired data indicating that the second modem 102 will be needed in the routing path (see Mouffork, at least paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Mouffok. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve in the acoustic noise level indicating that communications can be reliably resumed.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lind van Wijngaarden (US 2012/0210325) in view of Tennan (U.S 2023/0139514) further in view of Wali (U.S 2021/0211208).
(Note: For citation purposes, hereinafter, Tennan (PCT/GB2021/050405)) which the PCT filed on 02.18.2021, which qualifies as prior art date)
For claim 15:
In addition to rejection in claim 15, Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan does not explicitly disclose sharing at least part of the collected information, or preprocessed information that is derived from the collected information, with an operator of the wireless communication network.
Wali, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Lind van Wijngaarden-Tennan fails: the Smart Sensor Network system uses the Internet of Things technology to allow real-time continuous measurement of electromagnetic energy radiation. The information is collected and shared in real-time with a server to allow for trend analysis and system monitoring and network operators can determine with high precision the specific frequency carrier for which the transmit power will need to be adjusted (see Wali, at least Figure 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Wali. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve the overhead problem.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in all independents form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome any objection claims set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior arts made or record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosures. Rechkemmer et al. (U.S 2021/0094435), discloses method for update the charging profile according to the feedback from the driver indicative of the changed schedule.
Puchko et al. (U.S 2020/0275368), discloses the user node is configured to determine an indication of at least one wake-up latency of the user node, the at least one wake-up latency being a time period for the user node to wake-up and start to monitor a downlink channel transmitted by the network node of a wireless communication network
Gillett et al. (U.S 2014/ 0003261), discloses control activation of the local transceiver to scan for subsequent availability of one or more of the wireless local area networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN HUONG TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5829. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (7:30AM-5:00PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICKY NGO can be reached on 571-272-3139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lan-Huong Truong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit: 2464
03/07/2026