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 have been considered.
Applicant amended the independent claims and argued these amendments. Examiner agrees that the previous independent claim rejection did not account for these amendments. However, prior art already of record does teach these limitations. Please see the rejection that follows.
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, 2, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).)
Regarding claim 1, Mishra discloses a wireless transceiver device, comprising: (See Mishra fig. 1, 5; 10 mobile device (e.g. wireless transceiver device))
a communication module used for transmitting and receiving radio frequency (RF) signals; and (See Mishra fig. 5, col. 5, lines 50-56; 119 antenna, along with algorithm and processing, (e.g. a communication module) for transmitting and receiving radio signals (e.g. RF signals))
a processor coupled to the communication module and configured to perform the following operations in accordance with a predetermined condition: (See Mishra fig. 5, col. 5, lines 50-56; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory; predetermined condition is device is on and powered (e.g. it cannot operate if it does not have power))
determining a plurality of candidate transmission modes according to a current transmission mode of the communication module, wherein in each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes, (See Mishra col. 4, lines 1-5, col. 6, lines 37-55; wireless communication using IEEE 802.11 having various transmission rates (e.g. different candidate transmission modes) which is repeated (e.g. a current then a next rate) on a dynamic basis)
determining a selected transmission mode with a least power consumption value from the plurality of candidate transmission modes as a subsequent transmission mode of the communication module. (See Mishra col. 6, lines 37-55; performing the steps to minimize the energy performing dynamically as needed; see also fig. 7, 8)
Mishra does not explicitly disclose wherein a packet error rate (PER) of the communication module is less than an error rate threshold to be considered. However, Gosteau does disclose wherein a packet error rate (PER) of the communication module is less than an error rate threshold to be considered. (See Gosteau para. 28; only support rates that are below a packet error rate threshold) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra to include the teaching of wherein a packet error rate (PER) of the communication module is less than an error rate threshold to be considered of Gosteau with the motivation being for higher effective goodput, reduced latency, optimized performance, improved resource allocation (excessive dropped packets is wasteful of resources) and further to reduce battery usage (high PER causes high amount of retransmissions which is energy wasteful) and further to extend battery life.
Mishra does not explicitly disclose a plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponding to at least one modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, at least one generation of communication standard, and at least one channel bandwidth. However, Deek does disclose a plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponding to at least one modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, at least one generation of communication standard, and at least one channel bandwidth. (See Deek pg. 1, I. Intro; IEEE 802.1n (e.g. generation of communication standard); pg. 7, VI Performance, A. Testbed, para. 2; MCS (e.g. MCS index) with different bandwidths; para. 1; MCS indices (e.g. index)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra to include the teaching of a plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponding to at least one modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, at least one generation of communication standard, and at least one channel bandwidth of Deek with the motivation being to maximize throughput and further to minimize power usage (or maximize power efficiency) and further to reduce latency and further to find the optimal parameters for communication by balancing goodput, throughput, energy usage, and latency which meets end user goals and maximizes limited wireless resources and further to properly identify different transmission modes to make optimal decisions balancing throughput, energy usage, and latency, for example, to best meet end user goals.
Regarding claim 2, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one MCS index is a single MSC index, the at least one generation of communication standard is a single generation of communication standard, and the at least one channel bandwidth is a plurality of channel bandwidths. However, Deek does disclose wherein the at least one MCS index is a single MSC index, the at least one generation of communication standard is a single generation of communication standard, and the at least one channel bandwidth is a plurality of channel bandwidths. (See Deek pg. 1, I. Intro; IEEE 802.1n (e.g. single generation of communication standard); pg. 7, VI Performance, A. Testbed, para. 2; MCS (e.g. single MCS index) with different bandwidths (e.g. plurality of bandwidths); para. 1; MCS indices (e.g. index)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein the at least one MCS index is a single MSC index, the at least one generation of communication standard is a single generation of communication standard, and the at least one channel bandwidth is a plurality of channel bandwidths of Deek with the motivation being to maximize throughput and further to minimize power usage (or maximize power efficiency) and further to reduce latency and further to find the optimal parameters for communication by balancing goodput, throughput, energy usage, and latency which meets end user goals and maximizes limited wireless resources and further to properly identify different transmission modes to make optimal decisions balancing throughput, energy usage, and latency, for example, to best meet end user goals.
Regarding claim 7, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1, wherein that the processor determines the selected transmission mode with the least power consumption value comprises: (See Mishra fig. 8, col. 6, lines 37-52; selecting new power level and transmission rate based upon minimizing total energy)
inquiring at least one transmission rate and power table to obtain a plurality of transmission rates and a plurality of transmission powers respectively corresponding to the plurality of candidate transmission modes; and (See Mishra fig. 6; energy profile having data rate, energy, etc.; fig. 8 block 100; col. 5, lines 39-43; creating an energy profile as a function of operating conditions; col. 6, lines 23-26; energy profile may be discretized for storage (e.g. a table with plurality of values); see also fig. 7; col. 6, lines 52-65, col. 7, lines 1-6;)
calculating a plurality of power consumption values respectively corresponding to the plurality of candidate transmission modes, wherein a least one of the plurality of power consumption values is the least power consumption value. (See Mishra fig. 7, 8; col. 6, lines 41-50; Energy consumption calculated as function of transmission power and transmission rate; fig. 8, block 134; col. 6, lines 37-54; minimizing total energy and select new power level and transmission rate based on minimization; see also col. 7, lines 1-8)
Regarding claim 10, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1. Mishra in view of Gosteau does not explicitly disclose wherein a first channel bandwidth to which the current transmission mode corresponds is wider than a second channel bandwidth to which each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponds. However, Deek does disclose wherein a first channel bandwidth to which the current transmission mode corresponds is wider than a second channel bandwidth to which each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponds. (See Deek pg. 7, VI Performance, A Testbed, para. 2; 40MHz used to exploit higher data rates (wider) but when PER rises too high, switching to 20MHz) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein a first channel bandwidth to which the current transmission mode corresponds is wider than a second channel bandwidth to which each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponds of Deek with the motivation being to maximize throughput and further to maximize power usage and further to reduce latency and further to find the optimal parameters for communication by balancing goodput, throughput, energy usage, and latency which meets end user goals and maximizes limited wireless resources.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Dhamdhere (7,756,082).
Regarding claim 3, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1. Gosteau discloses using different MSC indexes and the data rate is based upon MSC index. (See Gosteau para. 28) Mishra in view of Gosteau does not explicitly disclose wherein a first data rate corresponding to the current transmission mode is less than a second data rate corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes. However, Dhamdhere discloses wherein a first data rate corresponding to the current transmission mode is less than a second data rate corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes. (See Dhamdhere col. 3, lines 20-23) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein a first data rate corresponding to the current transmission mode is less than a second data rate corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes of Dhamdhere with the motivation being to reduce latency and further to increase throughput and further to maximize limited wireless resources and further to maximize limited battery power (faster transmission means less time of transmitter on).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Song (10,616,830).
Regarding claim 4, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose wherein at least one generation of communication standard is at least two generations of communication standard. However, Song does disclose wherein at least one generation of communication standard is at least two generations of communication standard. (See Song col 2, lines 25-35; 5G, LTE, etc. (generations of 3GPP communication standard)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of wherein at least one generation of communication standard is at least two generations of communication standard of Song with the motivation being to increase coverage by utilizing what is available and may have less congestion and further to increase throughput and reduce latency and further to yield the best results in terms of use and management, connectivity, battery life, load balancing and/or other parameters that can negatively impact the end device (See Song col. 2, lines 5-12)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Dhamdhere (7,756,082).
Regarding claim 5, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to inquire a candidate transmission mode switching table to determine the plurality of candidate transmission modes according to the current transmission mode. However, Dhamdhere does disclose wherein the processor is configured to inquire a candidate transmission mode switching table to determine the plurality of candidate transmission modes according to the current transmission mode. (See Dhamdhere col 7, lines 7-25, table 1; plurality of transmission modes in a control table (e.g. switching table) of possible transmission modes (e.g. candidate modes); col. 9, lines 4-25; current data rate; see also table 2) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein the processor is configured to inquire a candidate transmission mode switching table to determine the plurality of candidate transmission modes according to the current transmission mode of Dhamdhere with the motivation being to yield the best results in terms of use and management, connectivity, battery life, load balancing and/or other parameters that can negatively impact the end device and further to reduce latency and further to maximize limited wireless resources by choosing the best transmission mode that meets end-user goals while optimizing limited wireless resources by reducing retransmissions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Sullivan (2019/0297521) and further in view of Olgaard (2008/0287117).
Regarding claim 6, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1, wherein that the processor determines the plurality of candidate transmission modes. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose configuring the communication module to transmit in the plurality of candidate transmission modes, so as to obtain the PER in each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes; and removing at least one of the plurality of candidate transmission modes of which the PER is higher than the error rate threshold. However, Sullivan does disclose configuring the communication module to transmit in the plurality of candidate transmission modes, so as to obtain the PER in each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes; and removing at least one of the plurality of candidate transmission modes of which the PER is higher than the error rate threshold. (See Sullivan para. 28, 31; probing different MCS/rates to determine a PER; adjusting to a lower MCS/rate if PER is too high (e.g. removing a candidate)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of configuring the communication module to transmit in the plurality of candidate transmission modes, so as to obtain the PER in each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes; and removing at least one of the plurality of candidate transmission modes of which the PER is higher than the error rate threshold of Sullivan with the motivation being for higher effective goodput, reduced latency, optimized performance, improved resource allocation (excessive dropped packets is wasteful of resources) and further to reduce battery usage (high PER causes high amount of retransmissions which is energy wasteful) and further to extend battery life.
Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Sullivan do not explicitly disclose wherein the testing involves the same number of packets sequentially for the transmission modes. However, Olgaard does disclose wherein the testing involves the same number of packets sequentially for the transmission modes. (See Olgaard fig. 12, para. 88; predetermined number of packets (e.g. same number) sent sequentially for each mode tested; see also fig. 15) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Sullivan to include the teaching of wherein the testing involves the same number of packets sequentially for the transmission modes of Olgaard with the motivation being to allow for a fair comparison between the different modes (e.g. if only 1 packet is sent for one mode but 100 for another mode the error rate may be skewed to not reflect the actual rate because of the different sample sizes) and further because not using similar number of packets leads to low precision and bias and poor decisions being made by the devices as to which mode is most effectively meets goals.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Smith (5,167,024).
Regarding claim 8, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose entering a lower power mode when a power supply status of the wireless transceiver device changes from external power source charging to battery. However, Smith does disclose entering a lower power mode when a power supply status of the wireless transceiver device changes from external power source charging to battery. (See Smith col. 2, lines 25-33; entering low power consumption mode; col. 3, lines 14-17, 33-36; conserve battery power when disconnected from external power source; see also col. 6, lines 54-57; energy conservation is for when disconnected from external power source) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of entering a lower power mode when a power supply status of the wireless transceiver device changes from external power source charging to battery of Smith with the motivation being to conserve power and extend battery life and further in order to extend the self-sustaining period of portable devices (See Smith col. 2, lines 26-28)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Hwang (2020/0107265).
Regarding claim 9, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transceiver device of claim 1. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined condition includes that a wireless channel usage rate of the communication module is less than a usage rate threshold. However, Hwang does disclose wherein the predetermined condition includes that a wireless channel usage rate of the communication module is less than a usage rate threshold. (See Hwang fig. 3, 4, para. 10; UE adaptation to traffic and UE power consumption characteristic based upon traffic profile and load (e.g. usage rate threshold)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein the predetermined condition includes that a wireless channel usage rate of the communication module is less than a usage rate threshold of Hwang with the motivation being to maximize throughput and further to maximize power usage and further to reduce latency and further to find the optimal parameters for communication by balancing goodput, throughput, energy usage, and latency which meets end user goals and maximizes limited wireless resources.
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 11, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).)
Regarding claim 11, Mishra discloses a wireless transmission mode switching method adapted to a wireless transceiver device, the wireless transmission mode switching method comprising: (See Mishra fig. 1, 5; 10 mobile device (e.g. wireless transceiver device)) (See Mishra fig. 5, col. 5, lines 50-56; 119 antenna, along with algorithm and processing,) for transmitting and receiving radio signals (e.g. RF signals))
determining a plurality of candidate transmission modes according to a current transmission mode of the wireless transceiver device in accordance with a predetermined condition, wherein in each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes, (See Mishra col. 4, lines 1-5, col. 6, lines 37-55; wireless communication using IEEE 802.11 having various transmission rates (e.g. different candidate transmission modes) which is repeated (e.g. a current then a next rate) on a dynamic basis) (See Mishra fig. 5, col. 5, lines 50-56; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory; predetermined condition is device is on and powered (e.g. it cannot operate if it does not have power))
determining a selected transmission mode with a least power consumption from the plurality of candidate transmission modes as a subsequent transmission mode of the wireless transceiver device. (See Mishra col. 6, lines 37-55; performing the steps to minimize the energy performing dynamically as needed; see also fig. 7, 8)
Mishra does not explicitly disclose wherein a packet error rate (PER) of the communication module is less than an error rate threshold to be considered. However, Gosteau does disclose wherein a packet error rate (PER) of the communication module is less than an error rate threshold to be considered. (See Gosteau para. 28; only support rates that are below a packet error rate threshold) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra to include the teaching of wherein a packet error rate (PER) of the communication module is less than an error rate threshold to be considered of Gosteau with the motivation being for higher effective goodput, reduced latency, optimized performance, improved resource allocation (excessive dropped packets is wasteful of resources) and further to reduce battery usage (high PER causes high amount of retransmissions which is energy wasteful) and further to extend battery life.
Mishra does not explicitly disclose a plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponding to at least one modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, at least one generation of communication standard, and at least one channel bandwidth. However, Deek does disclose a plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponding to at least one modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, at least one generation of communication standard, and at least one channel bandwidth. (See Deek pg. 1, I. Intro; IEEE 802.1n (e.g. generation of communication standard); pg. 7, VI Performance, A. Testbed, para. 2; MCS (e.g. MCS index) with different bandwidths; para. 1; MCS indices (e.g. index)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra to include the teaching of a plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponding to at least one modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, at least one generation of communication standard, and at least one channel bandwidth of Deek with the motivation being to maximize throughput and further to minimize power usage (or maximize power efficiency) and further to reduce latency and further to find the optimal parameters for communication by balancing goodput, throughput, energy usage, and latency which meets end user goals and maximizes limited wireless resources and further to properly identify different transmission modes to make optimal decisions balancing throughput, energy usage, and latency, for example, to best meet end user goals.
Regarding claim 12, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one MCS index is a single MSC index, the at least one generation of communication standard is a single generation of communication standard, and the at least one channel bandwidth is a plurality of channel bandwidths. However, Deek does disclose wherein the at least one MCS index is a single MSC index, the at least one generation of communication standard is a single generation of communication standard, and the at least one channel bandwidth is a plurality of channel bandwidths. (See Deek pg. 1, I. Intro; IEEE 802.1n (e.g. single generation of communication standard); pg. 7, VI Performance, A. Testbed, para. 2; MCS (e.g. single MCS index) with different bandwidths (e.g. plurality of bandwidths); para. 1; MCS indices (e.g. index)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein the at least one MCS index is a single MSC index, the at least one generation of communication standard is a single generation of communication standard, and the at least one channel bandwidth is a plurality of channel bandwidths of Deek with the motivation being to maximize throughput and further to minimize power usage (or maximize power efficiency) and further to reduce latency and further to find the optimal parameters for communication by balancing goodput, throughput, energy usage, and latency which meets end user goals and maximizes limited wireless resources and further to properly identify different transmission modes to make optimal decisions balancing throughput, energy usage, and latency, for example, to best meet end user goals.
Regarding claim 17, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11, wherein determining the selected transmission mode with the least power consumption value comprises: (See Mishra fig. 8, col. 6, lines 37-52; selecting new power level and transmission rate based upon minimizing total energy)
inquiring at least one transmission rate and power table to obtain a plurality of transmission rates and a plurality of transmission powers respectively corresponding to the plurality of candidate transmission modes; and (See Mishra fig. 6; energy profile having data rate, energy, etc.; fig. 8 block 100; col. 5, lines 39-43; creating an energy profile as a function of operating conditions; col. 6, lines 23-26; energy profile may be discretized for storage (e.g. a table with plurality of values); see also fig. 7; col. 6, lines 52-65, col. 7, lines 1-6;)
calculating a plurality of power consumption values respectively corresponding to the plurality of candidate transmission modes, wherein a least one of the plurality of power consumption values is the least power consumption value. (See Mishra fig. 7, 8; col. 6, lines 41-50; Energy consumption calculated as function of transmission power and transmission rate; fig. 8, block 134; col. 6, lines 37-54; minimizing total energy and select new power level and transmission rate based on minimization; see also col. 7, lines 1-8)
Regarding claim 20, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11.
Mishra in view of Gosteau does not explicitly disclose wherein a first channel bandwidth to which the current transmission mode corresponds is wider than a second channel bandwidth to which each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponds. However, Deek does disclose wherein a first channel bandwidth to which the current transmission mode corresponds is wider than a second channel bandwidth to which each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponds. (See Deek pg. 7, VI Performance, A Testbed, para. 2; 40MHz used to exploit higher data rates (wider) but when PER rises too high, switching to 20MHz) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein a first channel bandwidth to which the current transmission mode corresponds is wider than a second channel bandwidth to which each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes corresponds of Deek with the motivation being to maximize throughput and further to maximize power usage and further to reduce latency and further to find the optimal parameters for communication by balancing goodput, throughput, energy usage, and latency which meets end user goals and maximizes limited wireless resources.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Dhamdhere (7,756,082).
Regarding claim 13, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11. Gosteau discloses using different MSC indexes and the data rate is based upon MSC index. (See Gosteau para. 28) Mishra in view of Gosteau does not explicitly disclose wherein a first data rate corresponding to the current transmission mode is less than a second data rate corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes. However, Dhamdhere discloses wherein a first data rate corresponding to the current transmission mode is less than a second data rate corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes. (See Dhamdhere col. 3, lines 20-23) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein a first data rate corresponding to the current transmission mode is less than a second data rate corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes of Dhamdhere with the motivation being to reduce latency and further to increase throughput and further to maximize limited wireless resources and further to maximize limited battery power (faster transmission means less time of transmitter on).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Song (10,616,830).
Regarding claim 14, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose wherein at least one generation of communication standard is at least two generations of communication standard. However, Song does disclose wherein at least one generation of communication standard is at least two generations of communication standard. (See Song col 2, lines 25-35; 5G, LTE, etc. (generations of 3GPP communication standard)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of wherein at least one generation of communication standard is at least two generations of communication standard of Song with the motivation being to increase coverage by utilizing what is available and may have less congestion and further to increase throughput and reduce latency and further to yield the best results in terms of use and management, connectivity, battery life, load balancing and/or other parameters that can negatively impact the end device (See Song col. 2, lines 5-12)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Dhamdhere (7,756,082).
Regarding claim 15, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to inquiry a candidate transmission mode switching table to determine the plurality of candidate transmission modes according to the current transmission mode. However, Dhamdhere does disclose wherein the processor is configured to inquiry a candidate transmission mode switching table to determine the plurality of candidate transmission modes according to the current transmission mode. (See Dhamdhere col 7, lines 7-25, table 1; plurality of transmission modes in a control table (e.g. switching table) of possible transmission modes (e.g. candidate modes); col. 9, lines 4-25; current data rate; see also table 2) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein the processor is configured to inquiry a candidate transmission mode switching table to determine the plurality of candidate transmission modes according to the current transmission mode of Dhamdhere with the motivation being to yield the best results in terms of use and management, connectivity, battery life, load balancing and/or other parameters that can negatively impact the end device and further to reduce latency and further to maximize limited wireless resources by choosing the best transmission mode that meets end-user goals while optimizing limited wireless resources by reducing retransmissions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Sullivan (2019/0297521) and further in view of Olgaard (2008/0287117).
Regarding claim 16, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11, wherein determining the plurality of candidate transmission modes.
Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose configuring the communication module to transmit in the plurality of candidate transmission modes, so as to obtain the PER in each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes; and removing at least one of the plurality of candidate transmission modes of which the PER is higher than the error rate threshold. However, Sullivan does disclose configuring the communication module to transmit in the plurality of candidate transmission modes, so as to obtain the PER in each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes; and removing at least one of the plurality of candidate transmission modes of which the PER is higher than the error rate threshold. (See Sullivan para. 28, 31; probing different MCS/rates to determine a PER; adjusting to a lower MCS/rate if PER is too high (e.g. removing a candidate)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of configuring the communication module to transmit in the plurality of candidate transmission modes, so as to obtain the PER in each of the plurality of candidate transmission modes; and removing at least one of the plurality of candidate transmission modes of which the PER is higher than the error rate threshold of Sullivan with the motivation being for higher effective goodput, reduced latency, optimized performance, improved resource allocation (excessive dropped packets is wasteful of resources) and further to reduce battery usage (high PER causes high amount of retransmissions which is energy wasteful) and further to extend battery life.
Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Sullivan do not explicitly disclose wherein the testing involves the same number of packets sequentially for the transmission modes. However, Olgaard does disclose wherein the testing involves the same number of packets sequentially for the transmission modes. (See Olgaard fig. 12, para. 88; predetermined number of packets (e.g. same number) sent sequentially for each mode tested; see also fig. 15) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Sullivan to include the teaching of wherein the testing involves the same number of packets sequentially for the transmission modes of Olgaard with the motivation being to allow for a fair comparison between the different modes (e.g. if only 1 packet is sent for one mode but 100 for another mode the error rate may be skewed to not reflect the actual rate because of the different sample sizes) and further because not using similar number of packets leads to low precision and bias and poor decisions being made by the devices as to which mode is most effectively meets goals.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Smith (5,167,024).
Regarding claim 18, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose entering a lower power mode when a power supply status of the wireless transceiver device changes from external power source charging to battery. However, Smith does disclose entering a lower power mode when a power supply status of the wireless transceiver device changes from external power source charging to battery. (See Smith col. 2, lines 25-33; entering low power consumption mode; col. 3, lines 14-17, 33-36; conserve battery power when disconnected from external power source; see also col. 6, lines 54-57; energy conservation is for when disconnected from external power source) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of entering a lower power mode when a power supply status of the wireless transceiver device changes from external power source charging to battery of Smith with the motivation being to conserve power and extend battery life and further in order to extend the self-sustaining period of portable devices (See Smith col. 2, lines 26-28)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (8,498,592) and further in view of Gosteau (EP1983676) and further in view of Deek (“Joint Rate and Channel Width Adaptation for 802.11 MIMO Wireless Networks” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON).) and further in view of Hwang (2020/0107265).
Regarding claim 19, Mishra in view of Gosteau in view of Deek discloses the wireless transmission mode switching method of claim 11. Mishra in view of Gosteau do not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined condition includes that a wireless channel usage rate of the communication module is less than a usage rate threshold. However, Hwang does disclose wherein the predetermined condition includes that a wireless channel usage rate of the communication module is less than a usage rate threshold. (See Hwang fig. 3, 4, para. 10; UE adaptation to traffic and UE power consumption characteristic based upon traffic profile and load (e.g. usage rate threshold)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Mishra in view of Gosteau to include the teaching of wherein the predetermined condition includes that a wireless channel usage rate of the communication module is less than a usage rate threshold of Hwang with the motivation being to maximize throughput and further to maximize power usage and further to reduce latency and further to find the optimal parameters for communication by balancing goodput, throughput, energy usage, and latency which meets end user goals and maximizes limited wireless resources.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights