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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2024 and 06/13/2025 have been placed in record and considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 26-45 are rejected 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.
Claim 26, lines 6-10 recites –
“probability associated with one or more available links of the first device;
transmit the probability to a second device; and
receive an indication of the number of links that need to be left free for a communication within a cluster at which the first device is located.”.
It is not clear from “probability associated with one or more available links” about what type of probability or association is being claimed, making claim indefinite.
Please see MPEP 2173.04
“a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear……”.
For continuation of prosecution, claim 26 may be amended as
“probability associated with one or more available links of the first device, wherein the probability associated with one or more available links of the first device indicating a probability that number of the one or more available links is less than a threshold number;
transmit the probability to a second device; and
receive an indication of the number of links that need to be left free for a communication within a cluster at which the first device is located.”, based on claim 27.
Claim 27, lines 2-3 recites “….. indicating a probability that the number of the one or more available links is less than the threshold number”. There is no antecedent for “the threshold number” making the claim indefinite.
For continuation of prosecution, claim 26 lines 2-3 are interpreted as –
“….. indicating a probability that the number of the one or more available links is less than a threshold number”
Claim 37, with similar language as in claim 26, is also interpreted same as claim 26.
Claim 38, with similar language as in claim 27, is also interpreted same as claim 27.
Claim 28, lines 6-9 recites –
“receive, from a first device, a probability associated with one or more available links of the first device;
determine, at least based on the probability, the number of links that need to be left free for a communication within a cluster at which the first device is located;….”.
It is not clear from “a probability associated with one or more available links of the first device” or from “determine, at least based on the probability, the number of links that need to be left free for a communication within a cluster….” about what type of probability or association is being claimed, making claim indefinite.
Please see MPEP 2173.04.
For continuation of prosecution, claim 28 lines 6-9 may be amended as
“receive, from a first device, a probability associated with one or more available links of the first device, wherein the probability associated with one or more available links of the first device indicating a probability that number of the one or more available links is less than a threshold number;
determine, at least based on the probability, the number of links that need to be left free for a communication within a cluster at which the first device is located;……”.
Claims 29-36, being dependent on claim 28, are also interpreted same as claim 28.
Claim 34, line 4 recites “…. the reference number of allowable parallel transmission …”. There is no antecedent for “the reference number” making the claim indefinite.
Claim 39, with similar language as in claim 28, is also interpreted same as claim 28.
Claims 40-45, being dependent on claim 39, are also interpreted same as claim 39.
Claim 45, line 4 recites “…. the reference number of allowable parallel transmission …”. There is no antecedent for “the reference number” making the claim 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.
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.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Callard et al. (US 20170055276 A1, hereinafter ‘CALLARD’) in view of Sun et al. (US 20230308938 A1, hereinafter ‘SUN’).
Regarding claim 26, COLLARD teaches a first device (Fig, 3 central controller 140,
[0070] a central controller 140 in communication with the scheduler 130) comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes, the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor (
Fig, 3 central controller 140, implicit.
See [0065] the central controller and/or schedulers may comprise software defined networking (SDN) components, or programs deployed on the same or differing device platforms of a communications network…
[0082] Various embodiments of the present invention utilize real and/or virtual computer resources. Such computer resources utilize, at a hardware level, a set of one or more microprocessors operatively coupled to a corresponding set of memory components which include stored program instructions for execution by the microprocessors. Computing resources may be used to provide virtual computing resources at one or more levels of virtualization.), cause the first device at least to:
determine a probability associated with one or more available links of the first device (
[0035] According to embodiments, the central controller can determine potential communication paths, reachability constraints and probabilities that can be associated with the activation of a plurality of links in a global context for the communication network.);
transmit the probability to a second device (
[0036] The initial schedule or information indicative of the initial schedule can be transmitted to the appropriate scheduler by the central controller. In some embodiments, the set of constraints is also transmitted to the scheduler by the central controller.);
receive an indication of the number of links that need to be left free for a communication within a cluster at which the first device is located (
[0051] According to embodiments of the present invention, a scheduler receives buffer status information for a collection of links. This information can be received from the network. For example, the buffer status information can be indicative of a potential buffer underflow or overflow event which may necessitate the modification of the initial schedule of link activation. A potential buffer underflow/overflow event can indicate that network resources associated with a link will not be used efficiently. An underflow event implies that unused or underused network resources at the link in question can be released without harming the overall network performance. An overflow event implies that transmission delays will occur over the link in question as a node associated with the link is incapable of transmitting the amount of data being received. An overflow event implies that resources at an upstream node can be released or repurposed without impacting network performance.).
COLLARD does not expressly disclose receive an indication of the number of links that need to be left free for a communication within a cluster at which the first device is located.
receive an indication of the number of links that need to be left free for a communication within a cluster at which the first device is located (
Fig. 8 MLD 805 communicating with AP MLD 807,
[0129] An AP or MLD may transmit a frame 808 including a ML steering and control element 810 to indicate traffic load on one or more links to one or more STAs or MLDs. It may provide information regarding the amount of buffered traffic and/or the priority and delay associated with the traffic on one or more links. Such information may be included in data frames …. or other type of response frames to inform the receiving STAs of potentially more pressing traffic on one or more links…... A non-STR STA or MLD may stop its current transmission on its current active links to monitor the links of its choosing, potentially selecting the highest priority data or low latency data as indicated in the ML steering and control element 810.
(Construed that a non-STR STA or MLD determines and provides a high probability indication of traffic usage on one or more available links or non-availability of the one or more available links by current transmission on its current active links, since non-STR STA or MLD may stop its current transmission on its current active links.
The current transmission from non-STR STA or MLD on current active links indicates to AP MLD the high probability indication of non-availability of the one or more available links.
Then in response, the non-STR STA or MLD receives from AP or MLD ML steering and control element 810 with indication of the number of links that need to be left free for a communication, since non-STR STA or MLD may stop its current transmission on its current active links to monitor the links of its choosing, potentially selecting the highest priority data or low latency data as indicated in the ML steering and control element 810.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to take the technique of ML steering and control in WLAN of SUN to the link scheduling system and method of COLLARD in order to take the advantage of method for reduce the medium/channel contention probability for an Access Category (AC) for high priority low latency traffic (SUN: [0110, 0129]).
Regarding claim 27, COLLARD, in view of SUN, teaches the first device of claim 26, wherein the probability associated with the one or more available links of the first device indicating a probability that the number of the one or more available links is less than the threshold number
(
See [0035, 0051] cited for claim 1.
Further see also SUN disclosing –
[0129] An AP or MLD may transmit a frame 808 including a ML steering and control element 810 to indicate traffic load on one or more links to one or more STAs or MLDs …... A non-STR STA or MLD may stop its current transmission on its current active links to monitor the links of its choosing, potentially selecting the highest priority data or low latency data as indicated in the ML steering and control element 810.
(It is obvious that non-STR STA or MLD with current transmission on its current active links indicates a high probability of unavailability or a probability of a number of available links is less than a required number or a threshold, and in response AP MLD sends ML steering for non-STR STA or MLD to stop transmission on its current active links)).
Regarding claim 28, COLLARD teaches a second device (Fig, 3 the scheduler 130,
[0070] a central controller 140 in communication with the scheduler 130
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes, the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at leas one processor, cause the second device at least to (
the scheduler 130, implicit.
See [0065] the central controller and/or schedulers may comprise software defined networking (SDN) components, or programs deployed on the same or differing device platforms of a communications network…
[0082] Various embodiments of the present invention utilize real and/or virtual computer resources. Such computer resources utilize, at a hardware level, a set of one or more microprocessors operatively coupled to a corresponding set of memory components which include stored program instructions for execution by the microprocessors. Computing resources may be used to provide virtual computing resources at one or more levels of virtualization.).
Further claim 28 is interpreted mutatis mutandis of claim 26 and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 26.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted mutatis mutandis of claim 26 and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 26.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 27.
Regarding claim 39, the claim is interpreted mutatis mutandis of claim 28 and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-36 and 40-45 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 29, COLLARD, SUN or any prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the second device of claim 28, wherein the second device is caused to determine the number of links that need to be left free by:
obtaining a reference number of links that need to be left free for the communication among the cluster;
determining, based on the probability, a relationship between a desire back-off rate for the communication among the cluster and a current experienced back-off rate, the back-off rate being associated with a blocking probability that the communication is blocked due to unavailable links; and
determining the number of links that need to be left free based on the reference number and the relationship.
Regarding claim 30-33, the claims being dependent on claim 29, are interpreted same as claim 29.
Regarding claim 34, COLLARD, SUN or any prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the second device of claim 28, wherein the second device is caused to determine the number of links that need to be left free by:
determining an association between the probability associated with one or more available links of the first device and a reference number of allowable parallel transmissions in the cluster;
determining a desire number of the allowable parallel transmissions in the cluster based on the association and a desired blocking probability for the communication among the cluster;
and determining the number of links that need to be left free based on the desire number of the allowable parallel transmissions in the cluster.
Regarding claim 35-36, the claims being dependent on claim 34, are interpreted same as claim 34.
Regarding claim 40-45, the claims having similar features as in claims 29-34, are interpreted same as claims 29-34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang et al. (US 20230199831 A1), describing Channel Access Method And Communication Apparatus
Singh et al. (US 20220232569 A1), describing LOW LATENCY COMMUNICATION DEVICES AND METHODS FOR THE LICENSED AND UNLICENSED SPECTRUM
Luong et al. (US 20210392506 A1), describing ADAPTIVE NR UNLICENSED SPECTRUM SHARING AND TRANSMISSION MECHANISM FOR DIFFERENT CHANNEL ACCESS PRIORITIES
Cherian et al. (US 20210282186 A1), describing UPLINK (UL) AGGREGATION FOR MULTI-LINK OPERATION (MLO)
Xue et al. (US 20210185719 A1), describing CHANNEL ACCESS CONTENTION MANAGEMENT FOR ULTRA-RELIABLE LOW-LATENCY COMMUNICATION (URLLC)
Haustein et al. (US 20200205230 A1), describing MULTI-CONNECTIVITY USER DEVICE FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAH M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8951. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM PST.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at 571-272-7919. 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.
/SHAH M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413