DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-25 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P.201.14(c), acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority based on application(s) EP21205718.6 submitted on October 29th, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on July 8th, 2024 and December 9th, 2024 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a machine claim, “A device for use in a wireless communication system”, and the list of devices (i.e. a communication link) in the preamble. The body of the claim recites the action steps of: “transmit…, receive…, control…” being performed by the device.
For clarity and placing the claim into a proper machine claim, it is suggested to replace “A device for use in a wireless communication system” with “A device for use in a wireless communication system comprising:” so that the aforementioned list of devices, are comprised by the device(s), that are performing these actions/steps (see MPEP 2106.03, section I1 ; MPEP 2173.05(p), section II2).
Claim 1 further recites “and/or” in line 6. For clarity and consistency, it is suggested to use words (i.e., and, or, etc.) without the slash “/”.
Claim(s) 2-25 are also being objected for reciting a similar limitation or for being dependent on an objected base claim as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gage (US 2008/0310443 A1) in view of Trainin et al. (US 2015/0223096 A1) hereinafter “Trainin”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 24,
Gage discloses a device for use in a wireless communication system [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, a system in which traffic allocation is performed based on dynamic trend analysis of a plurality of communication links between two devices (i.e., Device A “102” and a Device B “104”)], the device comprising a communication link to at least a second device [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, Communication Links A “106”, B “108”, and N “114” are capable of two-way transmission while Communication Link C “110” and Communication Link D “112” are capable of one-way transmissions between Devices A “102” and B “104”], wherein the device is configured to transmit and/or receive a link-level report [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, Device A “102” and a Device B “104” have multiple communication links through which they transmit data in one or both directions].
Although Gage discloses transmit and/or receive a link-level report, Gage does not explicitly teach “the device is configured to control the communication link by means of the link-level report or configured to be controlled based on information contained in the link-level report”, and “the link-level report comprising at least one of an information about a root cause of a change in link-level performance of the communication link, a measure to change link-level performance of the communication link, and a trend and/or an anticipated behavior of link-level performance of the communication link”.
However Trainin discloses providing a communication link to at least a second device [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “402”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, communicating a link measurement request frame, which is transmitted from an initiator station to a responder station (i.e., wireless communication unit “110” transmits a link measurement request to wireless communication unit “120”) with respect to wireless communication link “103”], transmitting and/or receiving a link-level report [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, communicating a first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame (i.e., wireless communication unit “120” transmits the first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame) with respect to the wireless communication link “103”], and/or controlling the communication link by means of the link-level report or being controlled based on information contained in the link-level report [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “408”, pg. 7, ¶119 lines 1-10, communicating the first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame including communicating the first link measurement report frame no longer than a predefined time period from reception of the link measurement request frame by the responder station (i.e., wireless communication unit “120” transmits the first link measurement report frame no longer than a beam refinement protocol inter-frame space (BRPIFS) from reception of the link measurement request frame)], the link-level report comprising an information about a measure to change link-level performance of the communication link [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, the link measurement report frame including link information measured by the responder station with respect to a wireless communication link between the initiator station and the responder station (i.e., the link measurement report frame including the link information measured by wireless communication unit “120”) with respect to the wireless communication link “103”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the device is configured to control the communication link by means of the link-level report or configured to be controlled based on information contained in the link-level report”, and “the link-level report comprising at least one of an information about a root cause of a change in link-level performance of the communication link, a measure to change link-level performance of the communication link, and a trend and/or an anticipated behavior of link-level performance of the communication link” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage to improve received signal power or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the intended receiver [see Trainin, pg. 2, ¶28 lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 2,
The combined system of Gage and Trainin discloses the device according to claim 1.
Gage further discloses wherein the communication link is a bi-directional communication link between the device and the second device [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, Device A “102” and a Device B “104” have multiple communication links through which they transmit data in one or both directions].
Regarding Claim 3,
The combined system of Gage and Trainin discloses the device according to claim 1.
Gage further discloses wherein the communication link is an indirect link between the device as one end and the second device as another end with a third device in between [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶38 lines 1-8, the communication links are established over wired and/or wireless transmission mediums], wherein said third device is involved in a communication between the first and second devices via the communication link [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶38 lines 1-8, and include other intervening communication devices and/or networks between Device A “102” and Device B “104”].
Regarding Claim 4,
Gage discloses the device according to claim 3.
Gage does not explicitly teach “the third device is involved in said communication by providing at least one path of the communication link via which a communication between the device and the second device takes place”, and “the third device is a configurable contributor to the communication link between the first and second devices”.
However Trainin discloses the third device is involved in said communication by providing at least one path of the communication link via which a communication between the device and the second device takes place [see pg. 4, ¶56 lines 1-5; ¶58 lines 1-5, wireless communication units “110” and/or “120” are configured to inform another wireless communication device, e.g., another DMG station, of an ability to perform a predefined link adaptation ("fast link adaptation")], and wherein the third device is a configurable contributor to the communication link between the first and second devices [see pg. 4, ¶56 lines 1-5; ¶58 lines 1-5, wireless communication units “110” and/or “120” do not use fast link adaptation, for example, when communicating with another wireless communication unit, which does not support fast link adaptation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the third device is involved in said communication by providing at least one path of the communication link via which a communication between the device and the second device takes place”, and “the third device is a configurable contributor to the communication link between the first and second devices” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5,
Gage discloses the device according to claim 4.
Gage does not explicitly teach “the third device is involved in said communication by relaying or forwarding signals between the first and second devices via the at least one path of the communication link that is provided by the third device”.
However Trainin discloses the third device is involved in said communication by relaying or forwarding signals between the first and second devices via the at least one path of the communication link that is provided by the third device [see pg. 4, ¶57 lines 1-11, the Fast Link Adaptation field have another predefined value, e.g., zero, for example, to indicate that wireless communication units “110” and/or “120” do not support the fast link adaptation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the third device is involved in said communication by relaying or forwarding signals between the first and second devices via the at least one path of the communication link that is provided by the third device” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combined system of Gage and Trainin discloses the device according to claim 1.
Gage further discloses wherein the device comprises a second link with the second device via which the link-level report is transmitted to or received from the second device [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10; ¶38 lines 1-8, Communication Links N “114” are capable of two-way transmission through which Devices A “102” and B “104” transmit data in one or both directions], wherein said second link is different from the communication link between the device and the second device [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10; ¶38 lines 1-8, Communication Link N “114” is a private communication network].
Regarding Claim 7,
The combined system of Gage and Trainin discloses the device according to claim 6.
Gage further discloses wherein the second link [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, Communication Link D “112”], via which the link-level report is received or transmitted [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, through which Devices A “102” and B “104” transmit data in one or both directions], is a unidirectional link between the device and the second device [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, are capable of one-way transmissions between Devices A “102” and B “104”].
Regarding Claim 8,
Gage discloses the device according to claim 1.
Gage does not explicitly teach “the device is configured to acquire the link-level report by creating the link-level report by itself, and to transmit the created link-level report to the second device”.
However Trainin discloses the device is configured to acquire the link-level report by creating the link-level report by itself [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “402”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, communicating a link measurement request frame, which is transmitted from an initiator station to a responder station], and to transmit the created link-level report to the second device [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, communicating a first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the device is configured to acquire the link-level report by creating the link-level report by itself, and to transmit the created link-level report to the second device” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10,
Gage discloses the device according to claim 1.
Gage does not explicitly teach “the device is configured to determine a root cause for the change in link-level performance as being of either stochastic nature or deterministic nature”.
However Trainin discloses the device is configured to determine a root cause for the change in link-level performance as being of deterministic nature [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, the link measurement report frame including link information measured by the responder station with respect to a wireless communication link between the initiator station and the responder station].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the device is configured to determine a root cause for the change in link-level performance as being of either stochastic nature or deterministic nature” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11,
Gage discloses the device according to claim 10.
Gage does not explicitly teach “the device is configured to consider variations over time and/or frequency of the changing link-level performance when determining the root cause”.
However Trainin discloses the device is configured to consider variations over time and/or frequency of the changing link-level performance when determining the root cause [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “408”, pg. 7, ¶119 lines 1-10, communicating the first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame including communicating the first link measurement report frame no longer than a predefined time period from reception of the link measurement request frame by the responder station].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the device is configured to consider variations over time and/or frequency of the changing link-level performance when determining the root cause” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16,
Gage discloses the device according to claim 1.
Gage does not explicitly teach “the device is configured to acquire the link-level report by receiving the link-level report from the second device”.
However Trainin discloses the device is configured to acquire the link-level report by receiving the link-level report from the second device [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “402”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, communicating a link measurement request frame, which is transmitted from an initiator station to a responder station].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the device is configured to acquire the link-level report by receiving the link-level report from the second device” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18,
Gage discloses the device according to claim 16.
Gage does not explicitly teach “the device is configured to determine, based on the information contained in the link-level report, a root cause for the change in link-level performance as being of stochastic nature or deterministic nature, or to derive from the information contained in the received link-level report whether a root cause for the change in link-level performance is of stochastic nature or deterministic nature”.
However Trainin discloses the device is configured to determine [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, the link measurement report frame including], based on the information contained in the link-level report [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, link information measured by the responder station], a root cause for the change in link-level performance as being of deterministic nature [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, with respect to a wireless communication link between the initiator station and the responder station].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the device is configured to determine, based on the information contained in the link-level report, a root cause for the change in link-level performance as being of stochastic nature or deterministic nature, or to derive from the information contained in the received link-level report whether a root cause for the change in link-level performance is of stochastic nature or deterministic nature” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19,
Gage discloses the device according to claim 18.
Gage does not explicitly teach “the device is configured to consider variations over time and/or frequency of the changing link-level performance when determining the root cause”.
However Trainin discloses the device is configured to consider variations over time and/or frequency of the changing link-level performance when determining the root cause [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “408”, pg. 7, ¶119 lines 1-10, communicating the first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame including communicating the first link measurement report frame no longer than a predefined time period from reception of the link measurement request frame by the responder station].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the device is configured to consider variations over time and/or frequency of the changing link-level performance when determining the root cause” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claims 25,
Gage discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for performing a method for operating a device in a wireless communication system [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶33 lines 1-6; ¶37 lines 1-10, a storage medium representing one or more devices for storing data in a system in which traffic allocation is performed based on dynamic trend analysis of a plurality of communication links between two devices (i.e., Device A “102” and a Device B “104”)], the method [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶33 lines 1-6; ¶37 lines 1-10, the traffic allocation] comprising:
providing a communication link to at least a second device [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, Communication Links A “106”, B “108”, and N “114” are capable of two-way transmission while Communication Link C “110” and Communication Link D “112” are capable of one-way transmissions between Devices A “102” and B “104”], transmitting and/or receiving a link-level report [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶37 lines 1-10, Device A “102” and a Device B “104” have multiple communication links through which they transmit data in one or both directions], when said computer program is run by a computer [see fig. 1, pg. 5, ¶34 lines 1-10; ¶37 lines 1-10, the stored data implemented or performed using a general purpose processor, etc.].
Although Gage discloses transmit and/or receive a link-level report device, Gage does not explicitly teach “controlling the communication link by means of the link-level report or being controlled based on information contained in the link-level report”, and “the link-level report comprising at least one of an information about a root cause of a change in link-level performance of the communication link, a measure to change link-level performance of the communication link, and a trend and/or an anticipated behavior of link-level performance of the communication link, when said computer program is run by a computer”.
However Trainin discloses providing a communication link to at least a second device [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “402”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, communicating a link measurement request frame, which is transmitted from an initiator station to a responder station (i.e., wireless communication unit “110” transmits a link measurement request to wireless communication unit “120”) with respect to wireless communication link “103”], transmitting and/or receiving a link-level report [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, communicating a first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame (i.e., wireless communication unit “120” transmits the first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame) with respect to the wireless communication link “103”], and/or controlling the communication link by means of the link-level report or being controlled based on information contained in the link-level report [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “408”, pg. 7, ¶119 lines 1-10, communicating the first link measurement report frame in response to the link measurement request frame including communicating the first link measurement report frame no longer than a predefined time period from reception of the link measurement request frame by the responder station (i.e., wireless communication unit “120” transmits the first link measurement report frame no longer than a beam refinement protocol inter-frame space (BRPIFS) from reception of the link measurement request frame)], the link-level report comprising an information about a measure to change link-level performance of the communication link [see fig(s). 1 & 4: Step “404”, pg. 7, ¶117 lines 1-6; ¶118 lines 1-13, the link measurement report frame including link information measured by the responder station with respect to a wireless communication link between the initiator station and the responder station (i.e., the link measurement report frame including the link information measured by wireless communication unit “120”) with respect to the wireless communication link “103”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the device is configured to control the communication link by means of the link-level report or configured to be controlled based on information contained in the link-level report”, and “the link-level report comprising at least one of an information about a root cause of a change in link-level performance of the communication link, a measure to change link-level performance of the communication link, and a trend and/or an anticipated behavior of link-level performance of the communication link” as taught by Trainin in the system of Gage to improve received signal power or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the intended receiver [see Trainin, pg. 2, ¶28 lines 1-4].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9, 12-15, 17 and 20-23 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication: Li et al. (US 2022/0330073 A1); see fig. 3, pgs. 5-8, ¶44-¶69.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSHIL P SAMPAT whose telephone number is (469) 295-9141. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8 AM - 5 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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/RUSHIL P. SAMPAT/Primary Examiner- TC 2400, Art Unit 2469
1 A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)).
2 IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005)