DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to communication filed on 06/06/2024. Claims 1-28 are pending for examination.
Examiner’s Note
2. 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 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.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18, 20-22, 25, 27 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of application No. 17/240408 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as “408” in view of Girish (US 2017/0111253 A1), in view Wang (US 2016/0219440 A1).
Instant Application
Patent Application 17/240408
1.
A method comprising:
determining, by a first computing device, connection information associated with a second computing device communicating via a first wireless service;
determining, by the first computing device and based on a connection quality of the first wireless service satisfying a threshold, to suspend a process for interrupting the first wireless service; and
causing, based on the connection quality of the first wireless service satisfying the threshold, the suspension of the process for interrupting the first wireless service.
1.
5. wherein the connection information comprises a measurement of one or more of the connection quality parameter, a user location parameter, a modulation rate, a link adaptation rate, a link quality indicator, a received signal strength parameter, or a proprietary link parameter.
6. further comprising determining identifying information in a communication message received via the second wireless service, and wherein at least one of the one or more override rules associate the identifying information with an override setting.
5. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 23 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of patent application no. 17/240408, hereinafter referred to as “408” in view of Girish (US 2017/0111253 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16 and 23, the claim 1 of the “17/240408” does not recite wherein the first computing device comprises one or more of a gateway device, an access point, a router, a modem, or a device controller.
However, in an analogous art, Girish recites wherein the first computing device comprises one or more of a gateway device, an access point (access point 110--Fig. 2; [0022]), a router, a modem, or a device controller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to take the teaching of Girish and apply them in the claim 1 of the “17/240408” to provide alerting is facilitated to a user of potential interruption to data transfer session. The alert provides the user with instructions or recommendations for remedying or preventing interruption to the transfer session (Girish; Abstract).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17 and 24, the claim 1 of the “17/240408” does not recite wherein the second computing device comprises one or more of a user device, a smart device, a mobile device, or a streaming device.
However, in an analogous art, Girish teaches wherein the second(1st) computing device comprises one or more of a user device (station 120-- Fig. 3; [0022]), a smart device, a mobile device, or a streaming device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to take the teaching of Girish and apply them in the claim 1 of the “17/240408” to alerting is facilitated to a user of potential interruption to data transfer session. The alert provides the user with instructions or recommendations for remedying or preventing interruption to the transfer session (Girish; Abstract).
6. Claims 5, 12, 19 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of patent application no. 17/240408, hereinafter referred to as “408” in view of Wang (US 2016/0219440 A1).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 19 and 26, the claim 1 of the “17/240408” does not recite
further comprising enabling, based on determining a second wireless service is active, the process.
However, in an analogous art, Wang teaches further comprising enabling, based on determining a second wireless service (WLAN radio 305) is active, the process (scan activity) ([0056], if the mobile device 115-d determines that the signal quality for the LTE radio 310 falls below a threshold, the scanning activity of the WLAN radio 305 is increased {i.e. enabled}.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to take the teaching of Wang and apply them in the claim 1 of the “17/240408” to improve network throughput because communication links that are adequate, or preferable, may not be interrupted to perform superfluous measurements (Wang; [0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20, 22-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Girish (US 2017/0111253 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15 and 22, Girish teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a first computing device (access point 110-Fig. 2/3), connection information associated with a second computing device (station 120 ) communicating via a first wireless service(wireless interface 215 of 110—see [0031]) (see Fig. 3; [0033], 205 of the 110, outputs a piece of content to a station 120 over a wireless connection established between the 110 and station 120 through the wireless interface 215. ) (Hence obvious, the 110 determines connection information with the 120 communicating via the 215.);
determining, by the first computing device (access point 110-Fig. 2/3) and based on a connection quality (data transfer rate) of the first wireless service (wireless interface 215 of 110) satisfying (less than--considered) a threshold, to suspend (prevent/remedy) a process for interrupting (disruption) the first wireless service (wireless interface 215 of 110) ( [0040]; Fig. 3, [0044], at 315-- determination is made {by access point 110—[0043]} that monitored data transfer rate for data transfer session is less than minimum data transfer rate threshold, process 300 proceed to 320; At 320- an alert is output to the station 120; wherein [0045], the alert includes instructions to assist a user/station 120{[0025]} in remedying or preventing potential disruption to the transfer session.) (Hence the 110 determines, based on a connection quality of the 110/215 is less than/satisfying a threshold, to suspend a process for interrupting the 110/215.); and
causing, based on the connection quality (data transfer rate) of the first wireless service (wireless interface 215 of 110) satisfying (less than--considered) the threshold, the suspension (prevent/remedy) of the process for interrupting (disruption) the first wireless service (wireless interface 215 of 110) ([0040]; Fig. 3, [0044], at 315-- determination is made {by access point 110—[0043]} that monitored data transfer rate for data transfer session is less than minimum data transfer rate threshold, process 300 proceed to 320; At 320- an alert is output to the station 120; wherein [0045], the alert includes instructions to assist a user/station 120{[0025]} in remedying or preventing potential disruption to the transfer session.) (Hence based on a connection quality of the 110/215 is less than/satisfying a threshold, the 110 suspends a process for interrupting the 110/215.).
Specially for Claim 8, Girish teaches a first computing device (access point 110-Fig, 2/6) comprising:
one or more processors (610-Fig. 6; [0059]); and
memory (620-Fig. 6; [0060]) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (610-Fig. 6) (see [0065]), cause the first computing device to:
Specially for Claim 15, Girish teaches a system comprising:
a first computing device (access point 110—Fig. 2) and a second computing device (station 120—Fig. 2),
Specially for Claim 22, Girish teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed (see [0021]; [0065]), cause:
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16 and 23, Girish further teaches wherein the first computing device comprises one or more of a gateway device, an access point (access point 110--Fig. 2; [0022]), a router, a modem, or a device controller.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17 and 24, Girish further teaches wherein the second computing device comprises one or more of a user device (station 120-- Fig. 3; [0022]), a smart device, a mobile device, or a streaming device.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 20 and 27, Girish further teaches wherein the connection information comprises a measurement of one or more of the connection quality ( [0044]; [0025]), a user location parameter, a modulation rate, a link adaptation rate, a link quality indicator, a received signal strength parameter, or a proprietary link parameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 4, 11, 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girish (US 2017/0111253 A1) in view of Ahn (US 2020/0288397 A1).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18 and 25, Girish do not teach wherein the process is configured to implement a duty cycle indicating a time length to limit transmission during a time window.
However, in an analogous art, Ahn teaches wherein the process is configured to implement a duty cycle indicating a time length to limit transmission during a time window ([0167], The duty-cycle parameter information includes information indicating a unit of the duty-cycle period. The duty-cycle parameter information includes information indicating the minimum awake holding time of WURx/WURx duty-cycle operation is not used {i.e. limit transmission during a time period/window.}.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to take the teaching of Ahn and apply them on the teaching of Girish to increase power efficiency (Ahn; [0222]).
11. Claims 5, 12, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girish (US 2017/0111253 A1) in view of Wang (US 2016/0219440 A1).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 19 and 26, Girish does not teach further comprising enabling, based on determining a second wireless service is active, the process.
However, in an analogous art, Wang teaches further comprising enabling, based on determining a second wireless service (WLAN radio 305) is active, the process (scan activity) ([0056], if the mobile device 115-d determines that the signal quality for the LTE radio 310 falls below a threshold, the scanning activity of the WLAN radio 305 is increased {i.e. enabled}.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to take the teaching of Wang and apply them on the teaching of Girish to improve network throughput because communication links that are adequate, or preferable, may not be interrupted to perform superfluous measurements (Wang; [0031]).
12. Claims 7, 14, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girish (US 2017/0111253 A1) in view of Mildh (US 2019/0320488 A1).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, 21 and 28, Girish do not teach further comprising determining identifying information in a communication message, and wherein causing the suspension of the process is based on the identifying information being associated with an override setting.
However, in an analogous art, Mildh teaches further comprising determining identifying information in a communication message, and wherein causing the suspension of the process is based on the identifying information being associated with an override setting ([0145]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to take the teaching of Mildh and apply them on the teaching of Girish to provide suspension based on the identifying information being associated with an override setting (Mildh; [0145]).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHEDI S ALEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0439. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Thus, Fri: 9-5. 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 M Rutkowski can be reached at 571-270-01215. 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.
/MEHEDI S ALEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/JEFFREY M RUTKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights