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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 23 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash (US 20060083168) in view of Iyer (US 20220039009).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/23/29/30, Prakash teaches A method of wireless communication for a first device ([Fig.1], A terminal), comprising:
receiving a first set of packets ([Fig.3], multiple packets are sent from a wireless network to the terminal.) from a second device ([Fig.1], Access point 130) during a time period ([Fig.3], a time period from T3 to T0.) associated with a training phase for the first device ([0055], “the window size and placement are determined based on computed statistics for packets received by terminal 110. For example, an average inter-arrival time, Davg,” is determined by using “most recently received packets” at the terminal 110.);
determining an arrival time of a first packet of the first set of packets ([Fig.3 and 0036], multiple previous packets and current packet are received in different time instants, such as T3, T2, T1 and T0.)
...
causing, based on the wakeup time for the first device ([Fig.5], terminal wakes up at beginning of the window, Tstart) and one or more attributes associated with the first set of packets ([Fig.3], received times of the multiple packets.), a shutdown of the first device ([0034], [Fig.5], the terminal enters doze state in between T0 and Tstart based on received times of the multiple previous packets and start of the ON window. “In the doze state, terminal 110 may power down as much circuitry as possible to conserve battery power.”).
However, Prakash does not specifically disclose determining, based on the arrival time and a wakeup time interval, a wakeup time for the first device.
In an analogous art, Iyer discloses determining an arrival time of a first packet ([Fig.13 and 0184], “wake-up signal is received within” a POW window.) ...
determining ([0184], “If the wake-up signal is received within this window, the UE must wake-up at least to monitor the following OnDuration.”), based on the arrival time ([0184], “wake-up signal is received within this window.”) and a wakeup time interval (“OnDuration”), a wakeup time for the first device ([0184], “the UE must wake-up at least to monitor the following OnDuration.”); and
causing, based on the wakeup time for the first device ... a shutdown of the first device ([Fig.3], UE returns to sleep after the ON duration.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify time arrival of wake up signal as taught by Iyer. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to monitor activity during a ON duration.
Claim(s) 5 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Iyer, and further in view of KHAIRMODE (US 20160302224).
Regarding claim(s) 5/27, KHAIRMODE teaches determining whether the total packet count satisfies a threshold packet count, wherein the total packet count of the first set of packets is based on a number of packets in the first set of packets ([0102], “UE detects that it has received a maximum number of packets to process ... the number of packets is equal to a preset threshold.”); and
in response to the total packet count satisfying a threshold packet count, causing the shutdown of the first device ([0102], “number of packets is equal to a preset threshold, the UE moves to the connected mode DRX sleep and shuts down the modem processor and RF unit.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify maximum number of packets as taught by KHAIRMODE. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to enter sleep mode after maximum number of packets are received.
Claim(s) 6 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Iyer, and further in view of Hasegawa (US 20120253819).
Regarding claim(s) 6/28, Hasegawa teaches calculating, based on the corresponding amount of audio data associated with each packet of the one or more packets, a total amount of audio data received ([0083], “intensity level of the voice signal.”);
determining whether the total amount of audio data received satisfies a threshold amount of data ([0083], “if the intensity level of the voice signal is equal to or greater than the threshold.”); and
causing the shutdown of the first device in response to determining that the total amount of audio data received satisfies the threshold amount of data ([0083], ” the voice collection scheduling unit 36 instructs, via the communication unit 26, the standby terminals placed in a sleep state.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify level of voice signal as taught by Hasegawa. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to place a terminal in a standby state.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Iyer, and further in view of Lo (US 20180338235).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Lo teaches determining, based on the shutdown of the first device, a wakeup time for a third device ([0010], “the host device is configured to wake up the peripheral device.”);
configuring the third device to wake up at the determined wakeup time for the third device ([0010], “the host device is configured to wake up the peripheral device.”); and
transmitting to the third device the determined wakeup time for the third device ([0010], “the host device is configured to wake up the peripheral device by sending a command ... The peripheral device is initially in a sleep mode and is configured to wake itself up by detecting the presence of the host device.).
However, Lo does not teach a sideband control channel.
In an analogous art, Harriman teaches a sideband control channel ([Col.20, lines 20], “link manager 1010 may send .. a single sideband signal, e.g., a conventional signal such as a wake signal or a clock request signal via the sideband channel.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify sideband signal as taught by Hasegawa. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to send a wake signal.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Iyer, and further in view of Gomes (US 20130130684).
Regarding claim(s) 10, Gomes teaches wherein the wakeup time interval is associated with a source application of the first set of packets ([0086], “a paging may trigger the UE to wake up for reception for a configured period of time, e.g. x TTI's or X frames in the source cell.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify wake up period as taught by Gomes. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to receive signaling.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Iyer, and further in view of Park (US 20210100053).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Park teaches sending a signal to an access point indicating the shutdown of the first device ([0026], “transmitting a trigger frame from each STA with the non-AP MLD to notify the corresponding AP in the AP MLD that the STA is in awake/doze state.”), and wherein the access point is a software enabled access point (SAP) and the second device is the SAP ([0035], “AP(s) 102 may include... a software enabled AP (SoftAP)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify trigger frame as taught by Park. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to indicate doze state.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Iyer, and further in view of Gan (US 20190253965).
Regarding claim(s) 13, Gan teaches detecting a change in a wireless local area network (WLAN) to which the first device is connected; and in response to detecting the change in the WLAN ([0153], “if the AP expects to perform, at the pre-agreed target wake-up time or the updated target wake-up time, longer-time communication with the primary transceiver of the STA.”):
adjusting the wakeup interval for the first device by a threshold amount ([0153], “the AP changes the minimum TWT wake duration in the TWT element by using the wake-up packet.”); and
transmitting a message to the second device to change a burst interval of the second device to a new burst interval, wherein the new burst interval of the second device corresponds to the adjusted wakeup interval ([0153], “After receiving the wake-up packet, the STA obtains the minimum TWT wake duration through parsing. The STA can learn of, based on the minimum TWT wake duration, duration of communication with the AP after waking up.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify change in a WLAN as taught by Park. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to indicate to a STA an updated minimum TWT wake duration.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Iyer, and further in view of Newham (US 20130316649), and further in view of Lin (US 20200213817).
Regarding claim(s) 21, Lin teaches wherein the second device is a proxy device ([0029], “"proxy" pair operations.”), wherein the second device receives a second set of packets from a third device, and the method further comprises:
receiving the second set of packets from the second device as a relay transmission from the second device ([0029], “the first wireless device forwards to the second wireless device pairing information that the second wireless device needs to communicate with the third-party device.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify relaying information as taught by Lin. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to pairing earpieces.
However, the combination of Prakash, Iyer and Lin does not teach rest of the claim limitations.
In an analogous art, Newham teaches adjusting the wakeup interval for the first device ([0050], “the base station eNB is configured to extend the wake-up duration TD1 by a time interval EP to generate the data transmission duration DTP.”); and
transmitting a message to the third device, wherein the message indicates a change to a burst interval of the third device to a new burst interval, and wherein the new burst interval of the second device corresponds to the adjusted wakeup interval ([0050], “the base station eNB can extend the wake-up duration TD1 by a time interval EP to allow the user device 1 to continue to transmit data until the transmission is completed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify wake up duration as taught by Newham. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmit data until transmission is completed.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Iyer, and further in view of Chou (US 20130300939)
Regarding claim(s) 22, Chou teaches wherein the second device is a server computing device ([0048], “media source 12 may be a web server.”) hosting a source application in a cloud computing environment ([0048], “media source 12 may be a web server located in an Internet cloud.”), and wherein the first set of packets is associated with the source application ([0013], “media source 12 that includes multiple media files.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Prakash to specify cloud server as taught by Chou. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmit data to a UE from an internet server.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 12, 14-20 and 24-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411