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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 2/4/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 2/4/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons set forth below.
In the communication field, applicant argues in substance that:
a. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 10-11)
“Applicant traverses this rejection and submits that the cited references, either alone or
in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or disclose all of the subject matter of the amended claims. For example, the references fail to teach, suggest, or disclose "for each device of the plurality of devices: determine, based at least on the maximum link speed and a data rate requested by the device for transmitting data to or receiving data from the access point system, a portion of a total bandwidth supported by the access point system required to transmit data to or receive data from the device at a data rate associated with transmitting data to or receiving data from the device, wherein the data rate requested by the device can be different from a maximum data rate supported by the device" as recited in amended claim 1.”
In response to argument [a], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
Kanda teach the limitation at “[0086], oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [examiner notes: the total capacity of 200 MBps of link 521 is equivalent the portion of a total bandwidth supported by the access point system. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps is equivalent to the data rate requested by the device for transmitting data to or receiving data from the access point system. Therefore, the portion of a total bandwidth supported by the access point system required to transmit data to or receive data from the device at a data rate associated with transmitting data to or receiving data from the device is equivalent to 200MBps because each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target. The term “can be” interprets as either same or different based on broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Therefore, the limitation interprets wherein the data rate requested by the device same or different from a maximum data rate supported by the device.]”.
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 2/4/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
b. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 11-12)
“The references also fail to teach, suggest, or disclose "in response to determining that the first maximum link speed associated with the first device is the slowest maximum link speed, throttle a first data rate requested by the first device for transmitting data to or receiving data from the access point system while keeping data rates associated with remaining devices unchanged to reduce a first portion of the total bandwidth required to transmit data to or receive data from the first device at the first data rate; and transmit data to or receive data from the first device at the throttled first data rate and transmit data to or receive data from the remaining devices of the plurality of the devices at respective data rates used
before the throttling of the first data rate" as recited in amended claim 1.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation “…can be…”. The phrase "can be" leaves the boundaries of the invention unclear, it is considered indefinite.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (US 20090116381 A1) in view of Sevindik (US 20210195446 A1) in view of Krishna (US 20170026980 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, an access point system, comprising:
Kanda teaches a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to: (Kanda, [0036], [0136], processor and memory.)
for each device of the plurality of devices: determine a maximum link speed associated with the device, wherein the maximum link speed is an estimated maximum speed of data exchange that can be achieved between the access point system and the device; and (Kanda, [0086], FIGs.5A-5D; oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [examiner notes: the maximum link speed associated with the device is 200MBps.])
determine, based at least on the maximum link speed and a data rate requested by the device for transmitting data to or receiving data from the access point system, a portion of a total bandwidth supported by the access point system required to transmit data to or receive data from the device at a data rate associated with transmitting data to or receiving data from the device, (Kanda, [0086], oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [examiner notes: the total capacity of 200 MBps of link 521 is equivalent the portion of a total bandwidth supported by the access point system. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps is equivalent to the data rate requested by the device for transmitting data to or receiving data from the access point system. Therefore, the portion of a total bandwidth supported by the access point system required to transmit data to or receive data from the device at a data rate associated with transmitting data to or receiving data from the device is equivalent to 200MBps because each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target.]) wherein the data rate requested by the device can be different from a maximum data rate supported by the device; (Kanda, [0086], oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed [examiner notes: the term “can be” interprets as either same or different based on broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Therefore, the limitation interprets wherein the data rate requested by the device same or different from a maximum data rate supported by the device.]).
determine that a sum of the portions of the total bandwidth required by the plurality of devices exceeds the total bandwidth supported by the access point system; (Kanda, [0086]; oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [examiner notes: the sum of the portions of the total bandwidth required by the plurality of devices is 400MBps exceeds the total bandwidth 200Mbps supported by link 521 of switch 6.])
determine that a first maximum link speed associated with a first device of the plurality of devices is a slowest maximum link speed of the maximum link speeds associated with the plurality of the devices; (Kanda, [0086], oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [examiner notes: the slowest maximum link speed associated with a device is 200MBps.])
in response to determining that the first maximum link speed associated with the first device is the slowest maximum link speed, throttle a first data rate requested by the first device for transmitting data to or receiving data from the access point system to reduce a first portion of the total bandwidth required to transmit data to or receive data from the first device at the first data rate; and (Kanda, [0119], FIG. 9A illustrates an example where a slow device can cause network congestion, essentially affecting other flows on the same data path which are capable of better throughput. This example demonstrates how ESRC can help the network achieve optimal throughput. In this example, disk 1 and disk 2 are coupled to switch 2. Host 1 and host 2 are coupled to switch 1. Switch 1 and switch 2 are coupled by an ISL. Assume all the links are of the same speed. Host 1, host 2, and disk 2 are capable of transferring data at a data rate of 100, whereas disk 1 can only transfer data at a rate of 1. [0120], since disk 1 is a slow device, it will cause buffer backup along the path from the hosts to the disks. This backup limits the data throughput across the ISL to about 2 units. In other words, data flow host 2→disk 2 is significantly slowed down by data flow host 1→disk 1. After applying ESRC, the network can achieve the following:
Host 1 to switch 1: data transfer will be restricted to 1 unit.
Host 2 to switch 1: data transfer will be restricted to 99 units.
ISL between switch 1 and switch 2 will show 100 unit throughput.
Switch 2 to disk 1: data transfer rate will be 1 unit (restricted by disk 1 itself).
Switch 2 to disk 2: data transfer rate will be 99 units.
[Examiner notes: the claim is silent about the status of the other devices, i.e. cutting both host 1 and host 2 data transfer rate teaches a limitation about throttling the slowest one.])
transmit data to or receive data from the first device at the throttled first data rate and transmit data to or receive data from the remaining devices of the plurality of the devices at respective data rates used before the throttling of the first data rate. (Krishna, [0016] Upon determining that the actual amount of wireless resources used by low-priority category wireless client devices exceeds a threshold amount, the actual amount of wireless resources used may be reduced. Various techniques are contemplated for reducing the actual amount of wireless resources used and virtually any technique may be utilized in various embodiments. In one embodiment, reducing includes limiting a data rate of a low-priority category wireless client device. [0079] FIG. 3F illustrates a fourth example for reducing resources in use 336 by low-priority category clients and involves throttling 348 one or more low-priority category wireless clients. For example, as illustrated, wireless client devices 320 and 322 are shown as having a data rate of their wireless network connections reduced. Throttling 348 may be achieved by a number of techniques, including reducing a data rate of an associated client device, reducing or limiting a bandwidth or throughput of an associated client device, etc.)
Kanda does not teach devices connect to the access point; detect that the access point system is to simultaneously transmit data to or receive data from a plurality of devices, wherein the access point system is configured to connect the devices to a data network; while keeping data rates associated with remaining devices unchanged;
Sevindik however in the same field of computer networking teaches devices connect to the access point; detect that the access point system is to simultaneously transmit data to or receive data from a plurality of devices, wherein the access point system is configured to connect the devices to a data network; (Sevindik, [0026], when executed by computer processor hardware, cause the computer processor hardware (such as one or more co-located or disparately processor devices or hardware) to: establish first wireless connectivity between a first wireless station and a second wireless station, the second wireless station in communication with a wireless access point that provides second wireless connectivity to multiple communication devices; )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda by incorporating the teachings of Sevindik. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to provide novel ways of providing improved wireless communications to one or more mobile communication devices in a network environment (Sevindik, [0004]).
Kanda does not teach while keeping data rates associated with remaining devices unchanged;
Krishna however in the same field of computer networking teaches while keeping data rates associated with remaining devices unchanged; (Krishna, [0016] Upon determining that the actual amount of wireless resources used by low-priority category wireless client devices exceeds a threshold amount, the actual amount of wireless resources used may be reduced. Various techniques are contemplated for reducing the actual amount of wireless resources used and virtually any technique may be utilized in various embodiments. In one embodiment, reducing includes limiting a data rate of a low-priority category wireless client device. [0079] FIG. 3F illustrates a fourth example for reducing resources in use 336 by low-priority category clients and involves throttling 348 one or more low-priority category wireless clients. For example, as illustrated, wireless client devices 320 and 322 are shown as having a data rate of their wireless network connections reduced. Throttling 348 may be achieved by a number of techniques, including reducing a data rate of an associated client device, reducing or limiting a bandwidth or throughput of an associated client device, etc.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda by incorporating the teachings of Krishna. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to rovide a good experience to the end users (Krishna, [0003]).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 1, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2, the access point system of Claim 1,
Kanda-Sevindik-Krishna teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the first portion of the total bandwidth supported by the access point system and required to transmit data to or receive data from the first device at the first data rate, based on the first data rate and the first maximum link speed. (Kanda, [0086], FIGs.5A-5D; oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [examiner notes: the maximum link speed associated with the device is 200MBps.)
Regarding claim(s) 3, the access point system of Claim 2,
Kanda-Sevindik-Krishna teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the first portion of the total bandwidth by dividing the first data rate by the first maximum link speed. (Kanda, [0086], FIGs.5A-5D; oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [examiner notes: the maximum link speed is 200MBps, the first data rate is 200MBps.Therefore, it would be person with ordinary skill to calculate the first portion of the total bandwidth, and the first portion of the total bandwidth equal to 100%.])
Regarding claim(s) 6, the access point system of Claim 5,
Kanda-Sevindik-Krishna teach wherein the processor is configured to stop transmitting data to or receiving data from the first device by: stopping to transmit data to or receive data from the first device on a first channel on which the access point system is to simultaneously transmit data to or receive data from the plurality of devices; and (Kanda,[0088], it is difficult to determine which flow, i.e., (host 3→target 2) or (host 1→target 1), is the real bottleneck. Note that neither target 1 nor target 2 is slow. The congestion is actually caused by the insufficient link capacity within the network due to oversubscription. In such a case the congestion can be detected on the E_Ports, instead of the F_Ports as in the slow-device case illustrated in FIG. 5A. Note that in case of slow device the congestion can also be detected on a switch's F_Port. There are two possible solutions for this problem. One is to separate the flows (host 3→target 2) or (host 1→target 1) on different VCs (virtual channels). The other is to rate-limit the source.)
starting to transmit the data to or receive the data from the first device on a second
channel different from the first channel. (Kanda, [0088], it is difficult to determine which flow, i.e., (host 3→target 2) or (host 1→target 1), is the real bottleneck. Note that neither target 1 nor target 2 is slow. The congestion is actually caused by the insufficient link capacity within the network due to oversubscription. In such a case the congestion can be detected on the E_Ports, instead of the F_Ports as in the slow-device case illustrated in FIG. 5A. Note that in case of slow device the congestion can also be detected on a switch's F_Port. There are two possible solutions for this problem. One is to separate the flows (host 3→target 2) or (host 1→target 1) on different VCs (virtual channels). The other is to rate-limit the source.)
Regarding claim(s) 7, the access point system of Claim 1,
Kanda-Sevindik-Krishna teach wherein the processor is further configured to throttle the first data rate associated with transmitting data to or receiving data from the first device to reduce the first portion of the total bandwidth required to transmit data to or receive data from the first device at the first data rate, such that the reduced first portion and remaining portions of the total bandwidth associated with remaining devices of the plurality of devices add up to be equal to or lower than the total bandwidth supported by the access point system. (Kanda, [0086], oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [0119], FIG. 9A illustrates an example where a slow device can cause network congestion, essentially affecting other flows on the same data path which are capable of better throughput. This example demonstrates how ESRC can help the network achieve optimal throughput. In this example, disk 1 and disk 2 are coupled to switch 2. Host 1 and host 2 are coupled to switch 1. Switch 1 and switch 2 are coupled by an ISL. Assume all the links are of the same speed. Host 1, host 2, and disk 2 are capable of transferring data at a data rate of 100, whereas disk 1 can only transfer data at a rate of 1. [0120], since disk 1 is a slow device, it will cause buffer backup along the path from the hosts to the disks. This backup limits the data throughput across the ISL to about 2 units. In other words, data flow host 2→disk 2 is significantly slowed down by data flow host 1→disk 1. After applying ESRC, the network can achieve the following:
Host 1 to switch 1: data transfer will be restricted to 1 unit.
Host 2 to switch 1: data transfer will be restricted to 99 units.
ISL between switch 1 and switch 2 will show 100 unit throughput.
Switch 2 to disk 1: data transfer rate will be 1 unit (restricted by disk 1 itself).
Switch 2 to disk 2: data transfer rate will be 99 units.)
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 2, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 3, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 6, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 7, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
2. Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of Sevindik in view of Krishna further in view of Lee (US 20170331529 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4, the access point system of Claim 2,
Kanda-Sevindik-Krishna do not teach wherein: the first maximum link speed associated with the first device is based at least on a communication protocol supported by the first device, a number of antennas used by the first device and a channel bandwidth supported by the first device.
Lee however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein: the first maximum link speed associated with the first device is based at least on a communication protocol supported by the first device, a number of antennas used by the first device and a channel bandwidth supported by the first device. (Lee, [0023], FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a protocol including information indicating that multiple user multiple input multiple output is supported according to an embodiment of the present disclosure; [0049], referring to FIG. 3B, for example, the access point 201 may distribute and transmit a spatial stream formed in a plurality of antennas to multiple users, that is, electronic devices 203, 205, and 207. For example, when the access point 201 may simultaneously support a maximum of three spatial streams through three antennas, the transmission data rate (e.g., 1299 Mbps) indicating the maximum physical link speed may be provided, and a data transmission rate that each electronic device may obtain may be, for example, 433 Mbps, through a single antenna. [0059], the processor 410 may determine the number of antennas that the access point allocates to the electronic device 400 based on the determined maximum data transmission rate. Accordingly, the processor 410 may activate at least one of the antennas based on the number of antennas of the access point allocated to the electronic device 400, and may transmit/receive a data stream based on an SU-MIMO mode support protocol through the activated at least one antenna and the allocated antenna of the access point.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda by incorporating the teachings of Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to provide an electronic device and a wireless communication method of an electronic device that effectively perform data transmission/reception based on a condition of wireless communication between an electronic device and an access point that support SU-MIMO and MU-MIMO in a wireless communication network (Lee, [0012]).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 4, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
3. Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of Sevindik in view of Krishna further in view of Hirth (US 20140126907 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 5, the access point system of Claim 1,
Kanda-Sevindik-Krishna teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that throttling the first data rate associated with transmitting data to or receive data from the first device does not bring a bandwidth required to simultaneously transmit data to or receive data from the plurality of devices to be equal to or lower than the total bandwidth supported by the access point system; and (Kanda, [0086]; oversubscription: Over-subscription is the case where the rate of data being injected into a fixed pipe is more that the output data rate of the pipe. As illustrated in FIG. 5B, all the links are capable of transmitting data at 200 MBps. Both host 1 and host 2 are communicating with target 1. Each host is capable of injecting data at 200 MBps to the target, but link 521 only has a total capacity of 200 MBps. In such a case, at F_Port E of switch 6, the buffer-to-buffer credit will frequently drop to zero due to the congested link 521, although link 521 is running at its full capacity, 200 MBps. In this case, the target and link 521 are considered oversubscribed. [examiner notes: the sum of the portions of the total bandwidth required by the plurality of devices is 400MBps exceeds the total bandwidth 200Mbps supported by link 521 of switch 6.])
Kanda-Sevindik-Krishna do not teach in response to determining that throttling the first data rate associated with transmitting data to or receive data from the first device does not bring the bandwidth required to simultaneously transmit data to or receive data from the plurality of devices to be equal to or lower than the total bandwidth supported by the access point system, stop transmitting data to or receive data from the first device and transmit data to or receive data from the remaining devices only.
Hirth however in the same field of computer networking teaches in response to determining that throttling the first data rate associated with transmitting data to or receive data from the first device does not bring the bandwidth required to simultaneously transmit data to or receive data from the plurality of devices to be equal to or lower than the total bandwidth supported by the access point system, stop transmitting data to or receive data from the first device and transmit data to or receive data from the remaining devices only. (Hirth, [0046], FIG.2; if the OLT MAC device 106 determines that the downstream congestion has not been relieved at the PON port 208A (312), the OLT MAC device 106 continues to receive the stream of downstream data items from the switch device 104 for transmission over the PON port 208A at the reduced data rate. In one or more implementations, the switch device 104 may reduce the data rate to 0, e.g. the switch device may stop transmitting the stream of downstream data items to the OLT MAC device 106 for transmission over the PON port 208A.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda by incorporating the teachings of Hirth. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to in order to avoid collisions between the upstream (Hirth, [0022]).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 5, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449