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 amendment filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 2,4-5,8 and 15 have been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment.
Claims 1-15,18-20,28 and 32 are pending in this application, with claims 1,18,28 and 32 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 07/27/2026 on page 9
of applicant's remark regarding Claim 1, the applicant
argues that Wong does not disclose early acknowledgement message and the station is the destination.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Wong discloses a concept of sending acknowledgement to transmitting side before sending or forwarding the received data to the destination. The same concept can be applied to downlink (i.e. AP->relay->STA) and uplink (i.e. STA->relay-AP). The figure 8 of the Wong discloses the same concept for the uplink. Wong teaches intermediatory device sending ack to the AP before sending the data to the STA (Wong, Fig.6,8 Para[0072-74]). The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on early acknowledgement and indication of handling delivery of data to patentably distinguish its claimed invention from the teachings of Wong. “It is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable... . [T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims—American Perspectives, 21 Int’! Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although the teachings or phrases of Wong are not identical to the claimed intention, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from Wong’s teaching. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-15 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
2. Applicant's arguments filed on 07/27/2026 on page 11
of applicant's remark regarding Claim 28, the applicant
argues that Bao does not disclose control information for early acknowledgement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Bao discloses sending control information regarding forwarding data to the UE (Bao Para[0157]). The examiner relies on Wong for the configuration of ACK sent from the intermediatory device for the data being forwarded (Wong Para[0041,0062-65]). The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on how control information is configured to distinguish the claimed invention. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1,15,18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Wong et al. (US 2015/0341106 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wong”).
Regarding Claims 1,18 and 32, Wong discloses methods of controlling wireless communication, the methods comprising: a node (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] A relay (i.e. node)) of a wireless communication network (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] A network) receiving a transmission of data from a wireless device (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] A STA (i.e. wireless device)); and the node sending an early acknowledgement message (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] After receiving data, the relay sends ACK to AP or AP-operating STA before sending the data to STA) to the wireless device, the early acknowledgement message indicating that the node will handle delivery of the data to the destination device on behalf of the wireless device (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] The ACK from the relay to AP contains relayed frame bit indicating how the data is handled).
Regarding claim 15, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong further discloses wherein the wireless device is an Internet of Things, IoT, device (Wong Para[0042] The smart meter station (i.e. IoT device)).
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of BAO et al. (US 2023/0422335 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Bao”).
Regarding claim 28, Wong discloses methods of controlling wireless communication, the methods comprising: a node (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] A relay (i.e. node)) of a wireless communication network (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] A network) receiving a transmission of data from a wireless device (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] A STA (i.e. wireless device)); and the node sending an early acknowledgement message (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] After receiving data, the relay sends ACK to AP or AP-operating STA before sending the data to STA) to the wireless device, the early acknowledgement message indicating that the node will handle delivery of the data to the destination device on behalf of the wireless device (Wong Fig.6 Para[0072-74] The ACK from the relay to AP contains relayed frame bit indicating how the data is handled). Wong does not explicitly disclose a node of a wireless communication network providing control information to a further node of the wireless communication network, the control information configuring the further node to perform the above method disclosed by Wong.
However, Bao from the same field of invention discloses a node of a wireless communication network providing control information to a further node of the wireless communication network, the control information configuring the further node to perform the above method disclosed by Wong (Bao Para[0157] The base station (i.e. node) sends control information to configure IRS (i.e. relay node) to forward the data to the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “a node of a wireless communication network providing control information to a further node of the wireless communication network, the control information configuring the further node to perform the above method disclosed by Wong” as taught by Bao. The motivation would have been to manage a link between nodes (Bao Para[0004]).
Claims 2-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Oyman et al. (US 2009/0262678 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Oyman”).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong does not explicitly disclose the node forwarding the data to the destination device; and in response to determining that the data was not successfully received by the destination device, the node retransmitting the data to the destination device.
However, Oyman from the same field of invention discloses the node forwarding the data to the destination device; and in response to determining that the data was not successfully received by the destination device, the node retransmitting the data to the destination device (Oyman Fig.2A Para[0030-40] The cooperating device (i.e. node) sends retransmission for unsuccessful data delivery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “the node forwarding the data to the destination device; and in response to determining that the data was not successfully received by the destination device, the node retransmitting the data to the destination device” as taught by Oyman. The motivation would have been to increase link reliability and throughput (Oyman Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Wong in view of Oyman discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Oyman further discloses wherein said determining that the data was not successfully received by the destination device is based on acknowledgement feedback from the destination device (Oyman Fig.2A Para[0030-40] The cooperating device sends retransmission when NACK (i.e. feedback) is received).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “wherein said determining that the data was not successfully received by the destination device is based on acknowledgement feedback from the destination device” as taught by Oyman. The motivation would have been to increase link reliability and throughput (Oyman Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Wong in view of Oyman discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Oyman further discloses wherein the acknowledgement feedback from the destination device comprises a negative acknowledgement message indicating that the data was not successfully received by the destination device (Oyman Fig.2A,2B Para[0030-40] The cooperating device sends retransmission when NACK is received).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “wherein the acknowledgement feedback from the destination device comprises a negative acknowledgement message indicating that the data was not successfully received by the destination device” as taught by Oyman. The motivation would have been to increase link reliability and throughput (Oyman Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Wong in view of Oyman discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Oyman further discloses wherein the acknowledgement feedback from the destination device comprises absence of a positive acknowledgement message indicating that the data was successfully received by the destination device (Oyman Fig.2A,2B Para[0030-40] The cooperating device sends retransmission when NACK (i.e. absence of positive ack) is received).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “wherein the acknowledgement feedback from the destination device comprises absence of a positive acknowledgement message indicating that the data was successfully received by the destination device” as taught by Oyman. The motivation would have been to increase link reliability and throughput (Oyman Para[0005]).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of MOSCIANO et al. (WO 2019 /115534 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Mosciano”).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong does not explicitly disclose wherein the early acknowledgement message causes the wireless device to enter an energy-saving mode.
However, Mosciano from the same field of invention discloses wherein the early acknowledgement message causes the wireless device to enter an energy-saving mode (Mosciano Page:12 Lines:25-33 The acknowledgement message is sent which in turn switches off the sensor and moves to sleep phase)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “wherein the early acknowledgement message causes the wireless device to enter an energy-saving mode” as taught by Mosciano. The motivation would have been to reduce battery consumption of sensors (Mosciano Page:3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of KALHAN et al. (US 2024/0022991 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kalhan”).
Regarding claim 7, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong does not explicitly disclose the node receiving a positive acknowledgement message from the destination device, the positive acknowledgement message indicating that the data was successfully received by the destination device; and the node forwarding the positive acknowledgement message to the wireless device.
However, Kalhan from the same field of invention discloses the node receiving a positive acknowledgement message from the destination device, the positive acknowledgement message indicating that the data was successfully received by the destination device; and the node forwarding the positive acknowledgement message to the wireless device. (Kalhan Para[0086] The Ack from the destination device is forwarded to the source UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “the node receiving a positive acknowledgement message from the destination device, the positive acknowledgement message indicating that the data was successfully received by the destination device; and the node forwarding the positive acknowledgement message to the wireless device.” as taught by Kalhan. The motivation would have been to avoid transmission collisions (Kalhan Para[0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Rao et al. (US 2023/0189050 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Rao”).
Regarding claim 9, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong does not explicitly disclose the node receiving a transmission of further data from the wireless device; and in response to detecting that the further data is identical to the data and the data not yet being successfully delivered to the destination device, the node discarding the further data.
However, Rao from the same field of invention discloses the node receiving a transmission of further data from the wireless device; and in response to detecting that the further data is identical to the data and the data not yet being successfully delivered to the destination device, the node discarding the further data (Rao Para[0152] The PDUs (i.e. data) is dropped when it is not different).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “the node receiving a transmission of further data from the wireless device; and in response to detecting that the further data is identical to the data and the data not yet being successfully delivered to the destination device, the node discarding the further data” as taught by Rao. The motivation would have been for power efficiency and enhanced quality of service (Rao Para[0004]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Yamamura et al. (US 2018/0287853 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Yamamura”).
Regarding claim 10, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong does not explicitly disclose the node receiving a transmission of further data from the wireless device; and in response to detecting that the further data is an updated version of the data and the data not yet being successfully delivered to the destination device, the node replacing the data with the further data.
However, Yamamura from the same field of invention discloses the node receiving a transmission of further data from the wireless device; and in response to detecting that the further data is an updated version of the data and the data not yet being successfully delivered to the destination device, the node replacing the data with the further data (Yamamura Para[0099-105] The low priority data is moved (i.e. replaced) when high priority data is received by the relay).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “the node receiving a transmission of further data from the wireless device; and in response to detecting that the further data is an updated version of the data and the data not yet being successfully delivered to the destination device, the node replacing the data with the further data” as taught by Yamamura. The motivation would have been to provide reliable communication (Yamamura Para[0004]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Bao.
Regarding claim 11, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong does not explicitly disclose the node receiving control information for configuring said sending of the early acknowledgement message and handling delivery of the data.
However, Bao from the same field of invention discloses the node receiving control information for configuring said sending of the early acknowledgement message and handling delivery of the data (Bao Para[0157] The base station (i.e. node) sends control information to configure IRS (i.e. relay node) to forward the data to the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “the node receiving control information for configuring said sending of the early acknowledgement message and handling delivery of the data” as taught by Bao. The motivation would have been to manage a link between nodes (Bao Para[0004]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Bao and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 2012/0120828 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 12, Wong in view of Bao discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong in view of Bao does not explicitly disclose wherein said control information is based on a service level agreement with a third party entity.
However, Anderson from the same field of invention discloses wherein said control information is based on a service level agreement with a third party entity (Anderson Para[0032] A configuration to achieve desired data handling (i.e. SLA) is achieved by sending bearer configuration to intermediate node (i.e. relay)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong and Bao to have the feature of “wherein said control information is based on a service level agreement with a third party entity” as taught by Anderson. The motivation would have been to preserve battery life of a wireless device (Anderson Abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Salkintzis et al. (US 2024/0187918 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Salkintzis”).
Regarding claim 13, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong does not explicitly disclose wherein the node is a user plane node of the wireless communication network.
However, Salkintzis from the same field of invention discloses wherein the node is a user plane node of the wireless communication network (Salkintzis Para[0041] The UPF (i.e. user plane) is involved in traffic handling between remote unit and a server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “wherein the node is a user plane node of the wireless communication network” as taught by Salkintzis. The motivation would have been to provide efficient data transfer (Salkintzis Para[0002]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Obaidi (US 2023/0026866 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Obaidi”).
Regarding claim 14, Wong discloses the methods, the wireless device and the node as explained above for Claim 1. Wong does not explicitly disclose wherein the node is arranged in a core network part of the wireless communication network.
However, Obaidi from the same field of invention discloses wherein the node is arranged in a core network part of the wireless communication network (Obaidi Para[0041] A satellite (i.e. relay) is part of the core network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wong to have the feature of “wherein the node is arranged in a core network part of the wireless communication network” as taught by Obaidi. The motivation would have been to mitigate latency and packet loss (Obaidi Para[0003]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights