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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues “…They are not parameters associated with any
decomposed task. HE contains no disclosure or teaching of: decomposing application tasks, distributing decomposed tasks across nodes, Edge devices hosting any such tasks, or a microservice or overlay architecture of any kind. HE does not disclose or teach any parameters "associated with a decomposed task" as recited in Claim 1. Consequently, HE also does not disclose or teach the first or second sets of parameters associated with the decomposed task as recited in Claim 1.” See page 8 of applicant’s remarks/arguments. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
HE discloses the wireless device 700 may dynamically adjust the set of transmission parameters based at least in part on channel conditions of the link 630 between the wireless device 700 and the peripheral device 620. The wireless device 700 may also select or change its power save mode or sleep state based on the channel conditions. When the channel conditions are relatively poor (i.e., channel condition as a parameter associated with a decomposed task), the wireless device 700 may decrease the level or depth of its power save mode or sleep state. See paragraphs [0095] and [0096]. HE does teach parameters "associated with a decomposed task" as recited in Claim 1. HE also does disclose the first or second sets of parameters associated with the decomposed task as recited in Claim 1.”
The applicant argues “Claim 1 requires transmission of the first and second packet sets "to one or more neighboring nodes." The peripheral devices in HE are Bluetooth-enabled earbuds, which are a passive audio/video sink at the end of a P2P link, not a peer node in any distributed-task architecture. Thus, HE does not disclose or teach "one or more neighboring nodes" as recited in Claim 1, and hence, the architectural framework of HE has no overlap with that of Claim 1.” See pages 8-9 of applicant’s remarks/arguments. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
HE discloses FIG. 6 depicts an example transmission 600 of data packets from a wireless device 610 to a peripheral device 620 over a communication link 630, according to various aspects of the present disclosure.
The peripheral device 620 may be an example of one or more of the peripheral devices 104, 106, 108, 110, 112 or 114 of FIG. 1. See paragraph [0076] and figure 1. According to paragraph [0045] of HE, examples of the one or more peripheral devices 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, or 114 may include a cellular phone, a smart phone, a SIP phone, a STA, a laptop, a PC, a desktop computer, a PDA, a satellite radio, a global positioning system, a multimedia device, a video device, a digital audio player, a camera, a game console, a tablet, a smart device, a wearable device (such as a smart watch, wireless headphones, etc.), a vehicle, an electric meter, a gas pump, a toaster, a thermostat, a hearing aid, a blood glucose on-body unit, an IoT device, or any other similarly functioning device. Therefore, HE discloses one or more neighboring nodes as recited in Claim 1.
The applicant argues “…That is, the event described in HE causes
a transmission of BSR by the peripheral device. This event does not cause
determination of any parameter set by the wireless device. Therefore, HE does not
disclose or teach "determining a second set of parameters associated with the
decomposed task based on a triggering condition being met" as recited in Claim 1.” See pages 9-10 of applicant’s remarks/arguments. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the BSR generated by the peripheral device 820 (i.e., the trigger
condition), the transmission parameters (i.e., those transmission parameters adjusted and described in paragraph [0110]) are determined. Therefore, HE does disclose "determining a second set of parameters associated with the decomposed task based on a triggering condition being met" as recited in Claim 1.
In response to applicant’s remarks “Thus, the adjustment of parameters is triggered by receipt of feedback information (BSR), not by the threshold event of paragraph [0109]. That is, the event described in paragraph [0109] of HE triggers a report and not parameter-set determination.” (see page 10), the examiner disagrees for the same reasons as mentioned above.
The applicant argues “Furthermore, neither the event described in paragraph [0109] of HE nor the receipt of feedback information (BSR) described in paragraph [0110] of HE is associated with a decomposed task. The BSR-threshold events of
paragraphs [0109] and/or [0110] of HE neither identify a decomposed task nor govern
determination of any parameters associated with the decomposed task. Therefore,
HE does not disclose or teach "determining a second set of parameters associate with the decomposed task based on a triggering condition being met" as recited in Claim 1.” See pages 10-11 of applicant’s remarks/arguments. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The BSR determines low channel quality, power consumption, latency violation, etc. (i.e., decomposed tasks) which is the triggering condition for determining parameters. See paragraphs [0109] and [0110]. HE is associated with a decomposed task. HE identifies a decomposed task and governs determination of parameters associated with the decomposed task. Therefore, HE does disclose "determining a second set of parameters associate with the decomposed task based on a triggering condition being met" as recited in Claim 1.
The applicant argues “In HE, a TTP (time-to-play) value is a playback timing value indicating when the earbud should output the carried audio/video data to the user. It is not a "transmission rate", i.e., it does not specify a rate at which packets are transmitted to a node, rather specifies a future playback time at the earbud. The "burst rate" is the MCS/PHY rate for radio-layer bursts to the earbud, not a transmission rate for packets to a "neighboring node" related to the decomposed task. Thus, the burst-transmission parameters (burst rate, burst interval, burst period, transmit power) are for sending Bluetooth-encoded audio-video bursts from a smartphone to an earbud over a P2P link and are not parameters "associated with a decomposed task". Further, earbud-buffer threshold event is not a "triggering condition" for determining any parameters associated with any decomposed task. HE also fails to disclose "neighboring nodes" as recited in Claim 1.” See pages 11-12 of applicant’s remarks/arguments. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
HE discloses the wireless device may increase the burst rate responsive to the feedback information indicating that the quantity of data packets queued in the receive buffer is less than a value, or may decrease the burst rate responsive to the feedback information indicating that the quantity of data packets queued in the receive buffer is greater than the value. The wireless device may adjust the set of transmission parameters based on the TOA information. For example, in some instances, the wireless device may decrease the burst rate responsive to the TOA information indicating that the queued data packets arrived at the Bluetooth-enabled peripheral device within a time period, or may increase the burst rate responsive to the TOA information indicating that at least some of the queued data packets arrived at the Bluetooth-enabled peripheral device after the time period. See paragraphs [0009] and [0010].
According to HE, the increase or decrease of the burst rate is a rate at which packets are transmitted (i.e., data packets in the queue being received/transmitted). Therefore, the burst rate is a transmission rate which is a transmission parameter “associated with a decomposed task”. For the reasons as already explained above, HE discloses a "triggering condition" for determining parameters associated with decomposed tasks. HE also discloses "neighboring nodes" as recited in Claim 1.”
The applicant argues “HE relates to reducing earbud power consumption while delivering audio-video bursts within latency tolerances over a Wi-Fi P2P link. Hande relates to handling groups of packets that share file-level QoS requirements instead of forcing per-packet QoS. That is, HE and Hande relate to different problems in different technical fields. The motivation of "lower latency" stated in the Office Action is conclusory at least because combining HE and Hande would frustrate the power-saving purpose of HE because of additional 5G nodes and processes. Therefore, there exists no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine HE with Hande.” See page 12 of applicant’s remarks/arguments. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
HE discloses the decomposed task runs as a device associated with the WTRU as described above. HE fails to disclose runs as a microservice on an Edge device associated with the WTRU. Hande discloses runs as a microservice on an Edge device associated with the WTRU (see paragraph [0055]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Hande's invention with HE's invention for allowing communication of data with lower latency (see paragraph [0055] of Hande).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Hande's invention with HE's invention for allowing communication of data with lower latency (see paragraph [0055] of Hande).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 10-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HE et al. (HE), U.S. Publication No. 2025/0039932.
Regarding Claim 1, HE discloses a method implemented by a wireless
transmit/receive unit (WTRU) for wireless communications, the method comprising:
determining i) a first set of parameters associated with a decomposed task and ii) a first transmission rate for transmitting packets to one or more neighboring nodes (i.e., the wireless device 810 determines or obtains initial values for a set of transmission parameters, and also determines or obtains an initial TTP value… the transmission parameters may include one or more of a burst rate, a burst interval, a burst period, or a transmit power level; see paragraph [0107]);
transmitting a first set of packets to the one or more neighboring nodes using the first set of parameters and the first transmission rate (i.e., the wireless device 810 transmits the first data packets to the peripheral device 820 over the P2P link as a first data burst using the initial values of the transmission parameters; see paragraph [0107]);
calculating a second transmission rate for transmitting packets to the one or more neighboring nodes (i.e., the wireless device 810 receives the BSR from the peripheral device 810, and may dynamically adjust the set of transmission parameters based at least in part on the feedback information carried in the BSR… the wireless device 810 may adjust the transmission parameters in a manner that reduces power consumption while continuing to meet the latency requirements; see paragraph [0110]);
determining a second set of parameters associate with the decomposed task (i.e., the wireless device 810 receives the BSR from the peripheral device 810, and may dynamically adjust the set of transmission parameters based at least in part on the feedback information carried in the BSR… the wireless device 810 may adjust the transmission parameters in a manner that reduces power consumption while continuing to meet the latency requirements; see paragraph [0110]) based on a triggering condition being met (i.e., the peripheral device 820 may send a BSR carrying updated buffer status information and the timing information to the wireless device 810 based on an event or condition (such as the buffer status information changing by certain amounts or reaching certain thresholds); see paragraph [0109]); and
transmitting a second set of packets to the one or more neighboring nodes using the second set of parameters and the second transmission rate (i.e., transmits the second data packets to the peripheral device 820 over the P2P link as a second data burst using the adjusted values of the transmission parameters; see paragraph [0112]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, HE discloses wherein the triggering condition
comprises one or more of: detecting a low latency condition at the WTRU; detecting a hoarding state at the WTRU; detecting a disconnected state at the WTRU; detecting a weak connectivity state at the WTRU; or a detected latency being above a threshold value (see paragraph [0111]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, HE discloses wherein the triggering condition
being met comprises detecting a low latency condition or a hoarding state at the WTRU, and wherein the second set of packets are transmitted in a shorter time slot duration than transmitting the first set of packets (see paragraphs [0113] and [0114]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, HE discloses wherein the triggering condition
being met comprises a set of queue lengths from a microservice being not received after a pre-configured time period (see paragraph [0182]).
Regarding Claim 10, HE discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (i.e., wireless device 200; see figure 2) for wireless communications, comprising:
a transceiver (i.e., radio 230; see figure 2); and
a processor (i.e., processor 202; see figure 2), wherein the transceiver and the processor are configured to:
determine i) a first set of parameters associated with a decomposed task and ii) a first transmission rate for transmitting packets to one or more neighboring nodes (see rejection for claim 1 above);
transmit a first set of packets to the one or more neighboring nodes using the first set of parameters and the first transmission rate (see rejection for claim 1 above);
calculate a second transmission rate for transmitting packets to the one or more neighboring nodes (see rejection for claim 1 above);
determine a second set of parameters associated with the decomposed task based on a triggering condition being met (see rejection for claim 1 above); and
transmit a second set of packets to the one or more neighboring nodes using the second set of parameters and the second transmission rate (see rejection for claim 1 above).
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) 3-5 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of Hande et al. (Hande), U.S. Publication No. 2020/0389813.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, HE discloses the method and WTRU as described above. HE fails to disclose wherein the decomposed task runs as a microservice on an Edge device associated with the WTRU. Hande discloses wherein the decomposed task runs as a microservice on an Edge device associated with the WTRU (see paragraph [0055]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Hande’s invention with HE’s invention for allowing communication of data with lower latency (see paragraph [0055] of Hande).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, HE and Hande disclose the method and WTRU as described above. HE further discloses further comprising: determining a set of queue lengths based on the triggering condition being not met; and transmitting the set of queue lengths to the microservice, wherein the microservice is connected in an overlay (see paragraphs [0078]-[0079] and [0095]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, HE and Hande disclose the method and WTRU as described above. HE further discloses wherein the triggering condition being not met comprises any of a hoarding state (see paragraph [0078]), a disconnected state, or a weak connectivity state at the WTRU being not detected or reached.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of Gholmieh et al. (Gholmieh), U.S. Publication No. 2018/0139140.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, HE discloses the method and WTRU further comprising receiving a message indicating the first set of parameters as described above. HE fails to disclose a session description protocol (SDP) message. Gholmieh discloses a session description protocol (SDP) message (see paragraphs [0044], [0046], [0049] and [0052]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Gholmieh’s invention with HE’s invention for supporting multipath transmissions as described throughout Gholmieh.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, HE discloses the method and WTRU wherein the first set of packets or the second set of packets is associated with a message as described above. HE fails to disclose a session description protocol (SDP) message. Gholmieh discloses a session description protocol (SDP) message (see paragraphs [0044], [0046], [0049] and [0052]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Gholmieh’s invention with HE’s invention for supporting multipath transmissions as described throughout Gholmieh.
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 SHANTELL LAKETA HEIBER whose telephone number is (571)272-0886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-0886. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHANTELL L HEIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights