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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 17-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lange et al (US 2021/0142592). Hereinafter referred to as Lange.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 17, and 24. Lange discloses a method performed by a wireless device (see at least figure 1), for handling a plurality of sensor data streams related to the wireless device in a wireless communications network (see at least, abstract, paragraphs [0035]-[0036] and figure 1), the method comprising: obtaining sensor data related to the plurality of sensor data streams (see at least abstract, figures 1-2, and paragraphs [0035]-[0036], and [0054]-[0058]); based on the obtained sensor data, determining prediction data indicative of how to predict one or both of current and future sensor data of the plurality of sensor data streams (see at least figure 5, and paragraphs [0007]-[0014], [0032]-[0036], [0069]-[0071, [0078]-[0087]), the prediction data comprising any one or more out of: a subset of sensor data relating to a subset of the plurality of sensor data streams; and at least one prediction parameter indicative of a predictability of one or both of the current and future sensor data of one or more of the plurality of sensor data streams; and transmitting an indication of the determined prediction data to a network node (see at least figures 4-5, and paragraphs [0007]-[0014], [0034]-[0035], [0071], [0074]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 18, Lange discloses a method further comprising receiving feedback data indicative of how the network node has predicted the one or both of the current and the future sensor data of the plurality of sensor data streams, and wherein determining the prediction data is based on the feedback data (see at least paragraphs [0071] and [0077]).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Lange discloses a method wherein determining the prediction data further comprises determining the predictability of the one or both of the current and the future sensor data of at least one of the plurality of sensor data streams (see at least paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 20. Lange discloses a method wherein the at least one prediction parameter comprises any one or more out of: a relation between the one or both of the sensor data and the subset of sensor data, and one or more of the plurality of sensor data streams, feedback data, and the previously transmitted subset of sensor data; an instruction of how to perform accurate prediction of the one or both of the current and the future sensor data of the plurality of sensor data streams based on the subset of sensor data; a time window for how long the current and/or future sensor data of the plurality of sensor data stream is predictable; a change parameter indicative of a change in the predictability of the current and/or future sensor data of the one or more of the plurality of sensor data streams; a generating function for replacing sensor data related to one of the sensor data streams of the plurality of sensor data streams; and a correlating function for adjusting sensor data related to one of the sensor data streams of the plurality of sensor data streams (see at least paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 21. Lange discloses a method wherein the wireless device is controlled by a planning node and wherein the wireless device is represented by any one out of: a remote controlled device; a robot; and an unmanned vehicle (see at least figure 1 and paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claims 6 and 22, Lange disclose a method further comprising: receiving trajectory data from the planning node, wherein the trajectory data is based on a prediction of the one or both of the current and the future sensor data of the one or more of the plurality of the sensor data streams; and based on the trajectory data, operating the wireless device (see at least paragraph [0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange in view of Altman (US 2021/0116907).
Regarding claim 7. Lange discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of determining the prediction data is based on any one or more out of: an uplink, UL, capacity of the wireless device; a signal quality relating to a communication between the network node and the wireless device; and a distance between the wireless device and the network node. However. Altman, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches determining the prediction data is based on any one or more out of: an uplink, UL, capacity of the wireless device; a signal quality relating to a communication between the network node and the wireless device; and a distance between the wireless device and the network node (see at least paragraphs [0063]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Altman, as indicated, into the communication method of Lange for the purpose of improving performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476