DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
-- PROCESSING PATH 1 106-2 -- should be -- PROCESSING PATH [[1]] 2 106-2 -- in fig. 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites first and second processing path for wireless communication with user equipment. It is unclear if the first processing path and second processing path share a same single user equipment or different user equipment for wireless communication for the two paths.
Claim 1 recites “processing path” without clearly reciting what constitute the processing path and processing data is referring to what type of processing.
Claim 4 recites “implemented in”. It is unclear if the implemented in is referring to the entire path is implemented by the hardware or path comprising the hardware i.e. hardware is part of the path.
Claim 6 recites “first amount of time associated with processing … comprises a first maximum processing delay”. It is unclear delay is referring to delay time in addition to the processing time or delay time is the processing time.
Claims 8 and 15 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “selecting processing path based on the amount of processing time via processing path, and processing data with the selected processing path,” at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a system comprising memory/processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 8 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory medium, which falls within the “machine / manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
claim elements
i
1. A system, comprising:
common
ii
a first processing path through a radio access unit of the system, wherein the system is configured to conduct wireless communications with user equipment;
common communication component
iii
a second processing path through the radio access unit,
common communication component
iv
wherein a first amount of time associated with processing via the first processing path is less than a second amount of time associated with processing via the second processing path;
mental process abstract idea
v
at least one processor; and
at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
common computing component
vi
based on identifying data to process,
selecting the first processing path as a selected processing path, or
selecting the second processing path as the selected processing path;
mental process abstract idea
vii
processing the data with the selected processing path, to produce processed data; and
common computing / post extra solution activity
viii
communicating the processed data with the user equipment as part of the wireless communications.
common communication / extra solution activity
The overall process described by steps [iv] and [vi] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Thus steps [iv] and [vi] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” For example, step [iv] recites “wherein a first amount of time associated with processing via the first processing path is less than a second amount of time associated with processing via the second processing path;”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of physical aid. Similarly, step [vi] recites “based on identifying data to process, selecting the first processing path as a selected processing path, or selecting the second processing path as the selected processing path;”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Therefore, steps [iv] and [vi] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claims 8 and 15 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 8 and 15 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[iii], [v] and [vii]-[viii]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites a system, which is directed to common system. Therefore, it is neither inventive nor provide improvements to the technological improvements. Claim 1 steps [ii]-[iii] are directed to first/second processing path through radio access unit for wireless communication, which is common in wireless communication system, and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology or technical environment. Claim 1 step [v] recites “at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations”, which is directed to common computing components like processor, memory and is neither inventive nor provide improvements to the technology / technical field. Claim 1 step [vii] recites “processing the data with the selected processing path, to produce processed data”, which is directed to common data processing method without providing improvement to the technology / technical field. Claim 1 step [viii] recites “communicating the processed data with the user equipment as part of the wireless communication”, which is directed to information transfer and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology / technical field.
The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[iii], [v], and [vii]-[viii] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i]-[iii], [v], and [vii]-[viii], under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 8 and 15 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Claim 1 in step [i] recites a system, which is directed to common system. Therefore, it doesn’t amount to significantly more. Claim 1 steps [ii]-[iii] are directed to first/second processing path through radio access unit for wireless communication, which is common in wireless communication system as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art (see cited prior arts), and doesn’t amount to significantly more. Claim 1 step [v] recites “at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations”, which is directed to common computing components like processor, memory as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. Claim 1 step [vii] recites “processing the data with the selected processing path, to produce processed data”, which is directed to common data processing method as recognized by the one of ordinary skills in the art and doesn’t amount to significantly more. Claim 1 step [viii] recites “communicating the processed data with the user equipment as part of the wireless communication”, which is directed to information transfer and doesn’t amount to significantly more. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea.
As such, it has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, “network”, and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014)(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application and do not amount to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 8 and 15 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application and do not amount to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept.
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the radio access unit comprises a distributed unit, a centralized unit, or a base station”, which is common components of wireless communication, and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to technology / technical improvement.
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein selecting the first processing path as a selected processing path is based on the data being associated with a priority value that satisfies a priority criterion”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the first processing path is implemented in hardware, and wherein the second processing path is implemented in software”, and are common components of computing / communication, and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to technology / technical improvement.
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the first processing path is implemented in hardware, and wherein the hardware comprises a field programmable gate array, a digital signal processor, a hardware accelerator card, or a hardware accelerator chipset”, and are common components of computing / communication, and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to technology / technical improvement.
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the first amount of time associated with processing via the first processing path comprises a first maximum processing delay associated with the processing via the first processing path, and wherein the second amount of time associated with processing via the second processing path comprises a second maximum processing delay associated with the processing via the second processing path”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the first amount of time associated with processing via the first processing path comprises a first average processing delay associated with the processing via the first processing path, and wherein the second amount of time associated with processing via the second processing path comprises a second average processing delay associated with the processing via the second processing path”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 9-14, and 16-20 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0328826 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Ishii et al. (US 2024/0397351 A1, hereafter Ishii).
As per claim 1, Lee teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a system, comprising:
a first processing path through a radio access unit of the system ([0007] first connection based on a first radio access technology RAT fig. 2 electronic device 101 second network 199; fig. 5 primary path 531), wherein the system is configured to conduct wireless communications with user equipment ([0057] wireless communication, electronic device fig. 1 101 199 104/108; fig. 5 510 -531-520 );
a second processing path through the radio access unit ([0007] second connection base on a second RAT fig. 2 electronic device 101 second network 199; fig. 5 secondary path 532 fig. 5 510 -532-520), wherein a first amount of time associated with processing via the first processing path is less than a second amount of time associated with processing via the second processing path ([0102] electronic device 101 may transmit first UL data based on the first connection and may transmit second UL data based on the second connection, throughput of second UL data based on second connection, first value, throughput of first UL data based on the first connection, arbitrary value [0145] throughput corresponding to first /second connection, [0147] ratio of throughput by the second connection to the total throughput by the first connection);
at least one processor (fig. 1 120 ); and
at least one memory (fig. 1 130) that stores executable instructions (fig. 1 140) that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations ([0042]), comprising:
based on identifying data to process ([0007] uplink data),
selecting the first processing path as a selected processing path ([0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna [0145] throughput corresponding to first /second connection, [0147] ratio of throughput by the second connection to the total throughput by the first connection, transmitting data based on second connection; fig. 17 1705-yes-1707), or
selecting the second processing path as the selected processing path [0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna [0145] throughput corresponding to first /second connection, [0147] ratio of throughput by the second connection to the total throughput by the first connection, transmitting data based on first/second connection; fig. 17 1705-No-1711);
processing the data with the selected processing path, to produce processed data ([0007] perform at least one operation for transmitting, second connection; fig. 7 709 713); and
communicating the processed data with the user equipment as part of the wireless communications ([0057] performing communication via the established communication channel fig. 1 electronic device 101 network 198/199 electronic device 104/102, 108 [0062] commands or data may be transmitted or received between the electronic device 101 and the external electronic device 104 via the server 108 coupled with the second network 199).
Lee doesn’t specifically teach amount of time associated with processing.
Ishii, however, teaches amount of time associated with processing ([0057 transmission time, reception time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Ishii of transmission /reception time to improve efficiency and allow determining the associated processing time based on the difference between the transmission and reception time to the method of Lee as in the instant invention.
The combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious because applying the method of determining the reception/transmission time i.e. determine the processing time as taught by Ishii to the throughput rate taught by Lee to yield expected results and improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Lee teaches wherein the radio access unit comprises a distributed unit, a centralized unit, or a base station ([0091] fig. 5 UE 510 base stations 520).
As per claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the first processing path is implemented in hardware (fig. 5 Primary path 531 [0089] path, data transmitted/received, entity/resources corresponding to the master node MN ), and wherein the second processing path is implemented in software (fig. 5 secondary path [0089] path, data transmitted, using entity/resource, secondary node SN).
As per claim 5, Lee teaches wherein the first processing path is implemented in hardware, and wherein the hardware comprises a field programmable gate array, a digital signal processor, a hardware accelerator card, or a hardware accelerator chipset ([0042] processor 120, signal processor, graphics processing unit).
As per claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the first amount of time associated with processing via the first processing path comprises a first maximum processing delay associated with the processing via the first processing path ([0102] electronic device 101 may transmit first UL data based on the first connection, throughput of first UL data based on the first connection [0145] throughput corresponding to first connection, [0147]), and wherein the second amount of time associated with processing via the second processing path comprises a second maximum processing delay associated with the processing via the second processing path ([0102] electronic device 101 may transmit second UL data based on the second connection, throughput of second UL data based on second connection [0145] throughput corresponding to second connection [0147] ratio of throughput by the second connection to the total throughput by the first connection).
Ishii teaches maximum processing delay associated with the processing via the processing path ([0006] delay, base stations, path delay i.e. maximum can be determined).
As per claim 7, Lee teaches wherein the first amount of time associated with processing via the first processing path comprises a first average processing delay associated with the processing via the first processing path ([0102] electronic device 101 may transmit first UL data based on the first connection, throughput of first UL data based on the first connection [0145] throughput corresponding to first connection, [0146] average of throughputs [0147]), and
wherein the second amount of time associated with processing via the second processing path comprises a second average processing delay associated with the processing via the second processing path ([0102] electronic device 101 may transmit second UL data based on the second connection, throughput of second UL data based on second connection [0145] throughput corresponding to second connection [0146] average of throughputs [0147] ratio of throughput by the second connection to the total throughput by the first connection ).
Ishii teaches maximum processing delay associated with the processing via the processing path ([0006] delay, base stations, path delay).
Claim 8 recites a method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 9, Lee teaches wherein the data packet is a first data packet ([0091] transmission data e.g. IP packet), wherein the selected processing path is a first selected processing path through a distributed unit of the radio access unit ([0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna; fig. 2 101-242/243, 248-199; fig. 1 100 104 108 [0076] 5G communication network), and wherein the operations further comprise:
based on identifying a second data packet to process ([0091] transmission data e.g. IP packet), selecting, by the system, a third processing path of a centralized unit of the radio access unit as a second selected processing path, or selecting, by the system, a fourth processing path of the centralized unit as the second selected processing path (fig. 5 primary/secondary path 532 base stations 520; [0076] legacy network).
As per claim 12, Lee teaches wherein the selecting of the selected path is based on a packet delay budget associated with the data packet ([0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna; fig. 2 101-242/243, 248-199; fig. 1 100 104 108; fig. 6 data size threshold 605 primary path 609 secondary path 607).
Ishii teaches a packet delay budget associate with the data packet ([0012] path delays, cost ).
Claim 15 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising at least one processor to perform operations, comprising elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 16, Lee teaches the data is associated with an ultra-reliable and low latency communication process ([0062] ultra low-latency service), and wherein the selected processing path indicates the first processing path ([0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna; fig. 2 101-242/243, 248-199; fig. 1 100 104 108; fig. 6 data size threshold 605 primary path 609 secondary path 607).
Jiang teaches wherein a priority value associated with the data ([0004] quality of service, priority, set in the QoS mechanism [0110] resources, allocated, priorities).
Claim 20 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10-11, 13-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ishii, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 2022/0312254 A1, hereafter Jiang).
As per claim 3, Lee teaches wherein selecting the first processing path as a selected processing path is based on the data ( [0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna [0145] throughput corresponding to first /second connection, [0147] ratio of throughput by the second connection to the total throughput by the first connection, transmitting data based on second connection; fig. 17 1705-yes-1707).
Lee and Ishii, in combination, do not specifically teach data being associated with a priority value that satisfies a priority criterion.
Jiang, however, teaches selected path is based on the data being associated with a priority value that satisfies a priority criterion ([0110] resources, allocated, based on priorities, communication quality of service ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Lee and Ishii with the teachings of Jiang of allocating resources based on the priorities to ensure communication quality of service to improve efficiency and allow selected path is based on the data being associated with a priority value that satisfies a priority criterion to the method of Lee and Ishii as in the instant invention.
The combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious because applying the method of allocating resources based on priorities to ensure quality of service as taught by Jiang to method of Lee and Ishii to yield expected results and improved efficiency.
Claim 10 recites elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 11, Lee teaches wherein the selecting of the selected path is based on a service indication associated with the data packet ([0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna; fig. 2 101-242/243, 248-199; fig. 1 100 104 108; fig. 5 primary/secondary path; fig. 6 secondary path 607 primary path 609 [0088] PDU, header information [0099] PDU, primary/secondary path, size of data, threshold).
Jiang teaches remaining claim elements of service indication associated with the data packet ([0009] service data packet ).
As per claim 13, Lee teaches based on a priority value associated with the data packet, processing, by the system, the data packet with the selected processing path before processing another data packet that has already been selected to use the selected processing path ([0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna; fig. 2 101-242/243, 248-199; fig. 1 100 104 108; fig. 6 data size threshold 605 primary path 609 secondary path 607).
Jiang teaches remaining claim elements of based on a priority value associated with the data packet ([0110] resources, allocated based on priorities), processing before processing another data packet that has already been selected to use the selected processing path ([0004] high priority preempts a resources occupied by terminal with a low priority).
As per claim 14, Lee teaches based on a priority value associated with the data packet, preempting processing another data packet other than the data packet that has already been selected to use the selected processing path as part of processing the data packet with the selected processing path ([0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna; fig. 2 101-242/243, 248-199; fig. 1 100 104 108; fig. 6 data size threshold 605 primary path 609 secondary path 607).
Jiang teaches remaining claim elements based on a priority value associated with the data packet ([0110] resources, allocated based on priorities), preempting processing another data packet other than the data packet that has already been selected to use the selected processing path ([0004] high priority preempts a resources occupied by terminal with a low priority, resource allocation and service guarantee, performed, based on the priority, provide quality of service that matches requirement).
As per claim 17, Lee teaches wherein the data is first data ([0042] data processing or computation), wherein the priority value is a first priority value, wherein the selected processing path is a first selected processing path ([0099] data size, threshold, primary path, secondary path), and wherein the operations further comprise:
selecting the second processing path for second data based on the second data being associated with a second priority value that the second data fails to be associated with the ultra-reliable and low latency communication process ([0058] ultra-reliable and low-latency communications i.e. can determine data of not ultra-reliable and low latency [0099] data size, threshold, primary path, secondary path).
Jiang teaches remaining claim elements of wherein the priority value is a first priority value ([0004] quality of service, QoS, low priority), second data being associated with a second priority value ([0004] quality of service, QoS, high priority).
As per claim 18, Lee teaches wherein a priority value associated with the data indicates that the data is associated with an ultra-reliable and low latency communication process ([0058] ultra-reliable and low-latency communications ), and wherein selecting the first processing path as the selected processing path is based on a delay budget associated with the data satisfying a delay criterion ([0099] data size, threshold, primary path, secondary path [0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna; fig. 2 101-242/243, 248-199; fig. 1 100 104 108; fig. 6 data size threshold 605 primary path 609 secondary path 607).
Ishii teaches remaining claim elements of path is based on a delay budget associated with the data satisfying a delay criterion ([0012] path delays, prevent increase in cost).
Jiang teaches wherein a priority value associated with the data ([0004] priority, QoS mechanism, service based on the priority).
As per claim 19, Lee teaches wherein the data is first data ([0042] data processing or computation), second data indicates that the second data is associated with the ultra-reliable and low latency communication process ([0058] ultra-reliable and low-latency communications i.e. can determine data of not ultra-reliable and low latency), and wherein the operations further comprise:
selecting the second processing path for the second data ( [0059] one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in communication network, selected from plurality of antennas by the communication module i.e. different antenna having different path/connection, selected at least one antenna; fig. 2 101-242/243, 248-199; fig. 1 100 104 108; fig. 6 data size threshold 605 primary path 609 secondary path 607).
Ishii teaches remaining claim elements of wherein the delay budget is a first delay budget ([0012] path delays, prevent increase in cost i.e. budget), based on a second delay budget associated with the second data failing to satisfy the delay criterion ([0012] path delays, prevent increase in cost, budget).
Jiang teaches remaining claim elements wherein the priority value is a first priority value ([0004] quality of service, QoS, low priority), wherein a second priority value associated with second data ([0004] quality of service, QoS, high priority).
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Belaiche (US 2008/0144492 A1) teaches communication apparatus for configuring a telecommunication system to define rate matching ratios and transmission time interval.
Hosseini et al. (US 2021/0307025 A1) teaches feedback prioritization for wireless communication
Laroia et al. (US 2007/0064641 A1) teaches enhancing performance in wireless communication system based on different wireless terminal movement.
Sevindik (US 2022/0361271 A1) teaches method for providing backhaul communications services with two different path with different latency.
Sun et al. (US 2015/0237609 A1) teaches managing wireless transmission resources based on transmission path gain.
Wang et al. (US 2009/0080497 A1) teaches system for concurrent frequency hopping of radio communications.
Yoneda et al. (US 2018/0077598 A1) teaches communication method, deciding priority of data, and channel usage estimated time.
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights