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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyas (US 20170332318 A1) in view of Shukair (US 20150201454 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vyas discloses:
“A method for maintaining a link, which is applied to a terminal device, the method comprising, determining an end time at which a first service ends, after the first service is initiated to a network side;” ([para 0035]: “The application layer of STA 120A generates a frame at t305 with destination as AP 110, and the keep-alive module records the time of transmission (also assumed to be t305) of the frame.”)
“determining a time at which a … release message is received, in response to a reception of the RRC release message corresponding to the first service sent by the network side;” ([para 0036]: “The de-authentication frame is shown as being received at t307 by STA 120A… In the example of FIG. 3, it is assumed that the de-authentication frame of t307 is in response to the frame transmitted at t306.”)
“estimating a timing duration of an inactivity timer set at the network side, according to the end time and the time at which the … release message is received; and” ([para 0037]: “Upon receipt of the de-authentication frame, STA 120A computes the time difference between the time of receipt of the de-authentication frame and t305 (the time at which the last frame was sent to AP 110 from STA 120A), and sets the final value of the expected inactivity time as the time difference between the time of receipt of the de-authentication frame and the time (t305) at which the last frame was sent to AP 110.”)
“sending, after a second service is initiated to the network side, a virtual data packet to the network side before a first timed duration reaches the timing duration, to maintain an ... connection between the terminal device and the network side, wherein the first timed duration starts from an end time at which the second service ends.” ([para 0037]: “In such instances, the final value of the expected inactivity time thus computed would be a fairly accurate estimate of the inactivity time used by AP 110, and STA 120A uses the final value as a basis to send keep-alive messages in the future.”)
Vyas does not disclose that the de-authentication frame is a “Radio Resource Control (RRC)” release message.
However, Shukair discloses the missing feature that the de-authentication frame is a “Radio Resource Control (RRC)” release message ([para 0007]: “The "keep alive" mechanism may be configured to insert some padding traffic (e.g., dummy packets) to maintain the RRC connection, for example, by restarting the network RRC connection release timer to prevent its expiration and release of the RRC connection during call setup.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Vyas and Shukair, to modify the technique as disclosed by Vyas, to be applied with RRC release as disclosed by Shukair. The motivation for doing so is that the benefit of Vyas (optimized keep alive transmissions) is equally beneficial in the context of Shukair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vyas with Shukair to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Vyas in view of Shukair discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Vyas further discloses “wherein, sending the virtual data packet to the network side before the first timed duration reaches the timing duration, comprises, sending the virtual data packet to the network side before the first timed duration reaches a collision avoidance duration corresponding to the timing duration; wherein the collision avoidance duration is less than the timing duration.” ([para 0045]: “One example of convergence is when the difference between the ‘higher value’ and the ‘lower value’ is less than some predetermined threshold, for example, one minute. When such convergence is reached, STA 120A uses the lower value as the final value of the expected inactivity time.”)
Regarding claim 5, Vyas in view of Shukair discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Vyas further discloses “determining a last acknowledgement (ACK) corresponding to the first service; wherein the last ACK is the last ACK sent by the terminal device to the network side or the last ACK received by the terminal device from the network side; and determining the time at which the last ACK is sent or received as the end time at which the first service ends.” ([para 0029]: “The keep-alive interval represents a maximum time interval between successive transmissions (data frames/control frames or keep-alive messages) from STA 120A to (or via) AP 110, to ensure that AP 110 does not disassociate STA 120A.” Wherein ACKs are a control frame well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.)
Regarding claim 6, 11, and 14 Vyas in view of Shukair discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Vyas further discloses “wherein the first service is the first service initiated after the terminal device is turned on and successfully registered in network.” ([para 0034]: “It is assumed in FIG. 3 that STA 120A has completed operations required for association and authentication (i.e., has associated and authenticated) with AP 110 at or a short duration prior to time instant t300.”)
Claims 8-10, 15, and 18-19 are substantially similar to claims 1-2 and 5 with the differences amounting to claims 1-2 and 5 are directed towards a method while: claim 8 is directed towards a system; claims 9, 15, and 18 are directed towards an apparatus; claims 10 and 19 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. These differences are taught by Vyas in paragraphs 79-82. Thus, claims 8-10, 15, and 18-19 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-2 and 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 12-13, 16-17, and 20-21 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, of the closest prior arts Vyas (US 20170332318 A1) in view of Shukair (US 20150201454 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Vyas in view of Shukair does not disclose “wherein, sending the virtual data packet to the network side before the first timed duration reaches the collision avoidance duration corresponding to the timing duration, comprises, sending the virtual data packet to the network side, in response to a failure in reception of the RRC release message corresponding to the second service before the first timed duration reaches the collision avoidance duration corresponding to the timing duration.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 3 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 16 and 20 are similar to claim 3 and contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons. Claim 12 depends on claim 3 and contains allowable subject matter based on its dependence.
Regarding claim 4, of the closest prior arts Vyas (US 20170332318 A1) in view of Shukair (US 20150201454 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Vyas in view of Shukair does not disclose “wherein, sending the virtual data packet to the network side before the first timed duration reaches the collision avoidance duration corresponding to the timing duration, comprises, updating the timing duration of the inactivity timer, in response to a reception of the RRC release message corresponding to the second service before the first timed duration reaches the collision avoidance duration corresponding to the timing duration, to obtain an updated timing duration; wherein the updated timing duration is a temporal difference between the end time at which the second service ends and the time at which the RRC release message corresponding to the second service is received; and after a third service is initiated to the network side, sending the virtual data packet to the network side in response to a failure in reception of the RRC release message corresponding to the third service before a second timed duration reaches the collision avoidance duration corresponding to the updated timing duration, wherein, the second timed duration starts from the end time at which the third service ends.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 4 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 17 and 21 are similar to claim 4 and contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons. Claim 13 depends on claim 4 and contains allowable subject matter based on its dependence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412