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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: monitoring unit, detecting unit, and arbitrating unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al (US 2024/0381462 A1) in view of Lindoff, Bengt (WO 2023/136768 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Barton discloses a link selection system (Fig. 1), for allocating a plurality of available links (Fig. 1, available links 135 and 145) to a plurality of multi-link-device (MLD) stations (Fig. 1, STA MLD 115 and STA MLD 125), the link selection system comprising:
a monitoring unit (Fig. 7, sub-process of CPU 705), for monitoring a traffic type of each of the MLD stations (22nd paragraph, AP MLD may continuously monitor the traffic load to determine the type of the application executing on the STA MLD, e.g., symmetrical, primary-downstream, or primary-upstream. Herein, type of application is traffic type) and a channel status of each of the available links (22nd and 69th paragraphs, AP MLD may continuously monitor the performance of its radio interfaces and/or collect one or more metrics regarding the channel status of a plurality of links between AP MLD and STA MDL);
a detecting unit (Fig. 7, sub-process of CPU 705), for detecting whether the traffic type of each of the MLD stations is a QoS traffic (30th paragraph, interactive application, e.g., video conference, that requires similar amount of upstream and downstream traffic with low latency and jitter. Low latency and jitter are QoS parameters. Therefore, video conference is a QoS traffic) and detecting whether the channel status of each of the available links is a congested condition (37th paragraph, radio interface AP 110-A is overwhelmed with high volume of upstream traffic), wherein when the traffic type of each of the MLD stations is determined as a background traffic if not detected as the QoS traffic (33rd paragraph, TID values 0 and 1 may correspond to background traffic which is the lowest priority traffic class and generally used for applications that are not time sensitive, e.g., email, file transfer, or software updates); and
an arbitrating unit (Fig. 7, sub-process of CPU 705), for arbitrating a link configuration of the available links for the MLD stations based on the traffic type of each of the MLD stations and the channel status of each of the available links (39th paragraph, AP MLD 105 may shift the downstream traffic 210 of STA MLD 115 and downstream traffic 225 of STA MLD 125 from AP 110-A using links 210 and 225 to AP 110-B using links 215 and 230);
wherein the available links are associated with a multi-link-operation (MLO) device (Fig. 1, links 135 and 145 are associated MLO AP MLD 105 and/or MLO STA MLDs 115 and 125).
Barton does not disclose that the background traffic is further determined as a heavy traffic or not. Lindoff discloses that background traffic is heavy data transfer based on usage, e.g., GB or TB of data (page 11, lines 26-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine background traffic as heavy data based on usage in Barton’s system, as suggested by Lindoff, to allocate bandwidth resources efficiently.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Barton discloses that wherein when a first usage ratio of air-time for all of the MLD stations is greater than a first threshold value, the channel status of each of the available links is detected as the congested condition (78th paragraph, when observing upstream or downstream traffic demands exceed a pre-defined threshold, the traffic component may instruct the computing device to offload some of the traffic to an alternative device or radio interface. Herein, traffic demands exceeding a pre-defined threshold is an indication of a congested condition).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Barton discloses that wherein when a plurality of QoS parameters associated with one of the MLD stations indicate audio data packets or video data packets, the one of the MLD stations is detected as having the QoS traffic (30th paragraph, interactive application, e.g., video conference, that requires similar amount of upstream and downstream traffic with low latency and jitter. Video conference includes audio and video data packets. Low latency and jitter are QoS parameters).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Barton discloses that wherein at least one first link is/are selected from the available links and allocated to the one of the MLD stations having the QoS traffic (30th paragraph, interactive application with low latency and jitter may use the linked AP/STA pairs between the AP MLD 105 and STA MDL 125 to transmit and receive data).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Barton discloses that wherein when a second usage ratio of air-time for one of the MLD stations is greater than a second threshold value, the one of the MLD stations is detected as having the heavy traffic (37th and 45th paragraphs, AP MLD 105 may monitor the amount of upstream traffic and determine that AP 110-A may simply be overwhelmed with volume of upstream traffic when upstream traffic exceeding a threshold. Herein, STA MLD is considered as heavy traffic STA MLD).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Barton discloses that wherein at least one second link is/are selected from the available links and allocated to the one of the MLD stations having the heavy traffic (Fig. 2, link 204 carrying high volume of upstream traffic).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Barton discloses that wherein when each of the MLD stations has neither the QoS traffic or the heavy traffic, the link configuration of the available links are kept unchanged (Fig. 1, links 135 and 145 are initially configured regardless the type of application).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights