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 Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 14 October 2025 has been received and made of record. Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 3 and 4 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument (Pages 7-8) stating that Eisen fails to show wherein the frame indicates an order of preference among the plurality of QoS levels, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Eisen shows receiving at a wireless access point (AP) an SCS request or frame transmitted by the STA. (Fig. 2, 206) The SCS request indicates a plurality of QoS levels by including profiles of TSPEC1 and TSPEC2 which define difference QoS latency requirements. ([0050]; [0023]) The AP schedules the STA to meet the TSPEC1 latency bound/profile initially and then later the TSPEC2 latency bound/profile based on QoS data. ([0050]; [0022-0023]) The index or ordered list of the ID of the TSPEC indicates an order of preference, where TSPEC1 is given preference initially over TSPEC2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eisen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0127299), hereinafter Eisen.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 11 and 16), Eisen teaches
A method, comprising: (Fig. 1, 102; [0058-0059]; i.e. A method performed by an AP/communication station that includes processor, memory and instructions to perform the method.)
identifying a plurality of quality of service (QoS) levels (i.e. TSPEC1 and TSPEC2) for an application flow (i.e. application/session stream with SCSID) between a wireless access point (AP) (Fig. 1, 102; i.e. AP) and a wireless station (STA), (Fig. 1, 124; i.e. mobile device/STA) each of the QoS levels defining a plurality of QoS characteristics (i.e. QoS latency requirements) for the application flow, ([0050]; [0023]; [0018]; i.e. The AP schedules the STA to meet the latencies of the TPSECs’ profiles included in the SCS request. Therefore, the AP reads the request and identifies the profiles.) wherein the identifying comprises receiving, at the AP, a frame (Fig. 2, 206; i.e. SCS request) transmitted by the STA indicating the plurality of QoS levels, (i.e. TSPEC1 and TSPEC2 profiles) ([0050]) the frame further indicating an order of preference (i.e. index/ordered list) among the plurality of QoS levels; ([0022-0023]; [0050]; i.e. The TSPEC ID index of 1 is given preference over TSPEC ID index 2 for the initial session.)
establishing a first QoS level, (i.e. TSPEC1) of the plurality of QoS levels, for the application flow, based on the identified plurality of QoS levels; and ([0050]; [0023]; i.e. The AP schedules the STA to meet the TSPEC1 latencies, thereby establishing the TSPEC1 QoS level.)
modifying the QoS level for the application flow from the first QoS level to a second QoS level, (i.e. TSPEC2) of the plurality of QoS levels, based on selecting between the identified plurality of QoS levels. ([0050]; [0023]; i.e. The AP modifies the QoS level from TSPEC 1 to TSPEC2 by scheduling the STA to meet the TSPEC2 latencies instead of the TSPEC1 latencies. The AP selects TSPEC2 based on sent QoS data from the STA. The QoS data includes the new TSPEC ID.)
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claims 12 and 17), Eisen teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the application flow comprises a stream classification service (SCS) flow. ([0050])
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly claims 13 and 18), Eisen teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the frame further indicates a service level agreement (SLA) requirement (i.e. QoS latency requirements) for one or more of the plurality of QoS levels. ([0050]; i.e. The SCS request includes the profiles of TPSEC1 and TPSEC2 which include the QoS latency requirements for each.)
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly claims 15 and 20), Eisen teaches
The method of claim 2, wherein the identifying the plurality of QoS levels for the application flow comprises:
registering at the AP a plurality of QoS profiles for the application flow, wherein each of the plurality of QoS levels corresponds to a respective QoS profile of the plurality of QoS profiles. ([0050]; i.e. The AP would inherently register/save the TSPEC profiles so that they may identified from the QoS data received from the STA which includes the TSPEC ID.)
Regarding claim 8, Eisen teaches
The method of claim 7, wherein establishing the first QoS level, of the plurality of QoS levels, for the application flow, based on the identified plurality of QoS levels comprises:
receiving at the AP, from the STA, an indication (Fig. 2, 206; i.e. SCS Request) of selection of a first QoS profile corresponding with the first QoS level. ([0050])
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly claims 15 and 20), Eisen teaches
The method of claim 2, wherein modifying the QoS level for the application flow from the first QoS level to the second QoS level, of the plurality of QoS levels, based on selecting between the identified plurality of QoS levels, comprises:
receiving at the AP a message (Fig. 2, 212; i.e. QoS data) indicating a request by the STA to swap from the first QoS level to the second QoS level. ([0050])
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 6, 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisen in view of Canpolat et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0007236), hereinafter Canpolat.
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly claims 14 and 19), Eisen shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Eisen further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein establishing the first QoS level, of the plurality of QoS levels, for the application flow, based on the identified plurality of QoS levels comprises:
selecting, at the AP, the first QoS level from among the identified plurality of QoS levels ([0050]; i.e. At first the AP selects the TSPEC1 QoS level from the SCS request profiles.)
However, Eisen fails to show
selecting, at the AP, the first QoS level based on one or more network characteristics.
Canpolat shows
selecting, at the AP, the first QoS level (i.e. appropriate QoS) based on one or more network characteristics.(i.e. traffic to/from the STA) ([0061])
Canpolat and Eisen are considered analogous art because they involve selecting a QoS for a traffic stream between an AP and a STA. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eisen to incorporate the teachings of Canpolat wherein selecting, at the AP, the first QoS level based on one or more network characteristics. Doing so provides that the AP may select the QoS level without signaling from the STA.
Regarding claim 9, Eisen shows all of the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above. Eisen further shows
The method of claim 2, wherein modifying the QoS level for the application flow from the first QoS level to the second QoS level, of the plurality of QoS levels, based on selecting between the identified plurality of QoS levels, comprises:
determining at the AP to swap from the first QoS level to the second QoS level ([0050]; i.e. The AP switches from the TSPEC1 QoS to the TSPEC2 QoS on signaling from the STA.)
However, Eisen fails to show
determining at the AP to swap from the first QoS level to the second QoS level based on one or more network characteristics.
Canpolat shows
determining at the AP to swap from the first QoS level (i.e. QoS setup) to the second QoS level (i.e. amended QoS setup) based on one or more network characteristics. (i.e. network conditions) ([0030]; [0036-0039]; [0060])
Canpolat and Eisen are considered analogous art because they involve selecting a QoS for a traffic stream between an AP and a STA. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eisen to incorporate the teachings of Canpolat wherein determining at the AP to swap from the first QoS level to the second QoS level based on one or more network characteristics. Doing so provides that the AP may select the QoS level without signaling from the STA.
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 CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451