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 08/26/2024 and 02/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17,23-28, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2006/0233110 A1; “Yang”).
Regarding claim 16, Yang teaches a method for controlling a data transmission between a communication subscriber of a first type and a plurality of communication subscribers of a second type, the method comprising:
detecting at least one load parameter that is related to the data transmission [Yang ¶ 0015: conventional Radio-link Overload Controller (ROC) 109 within BTS 102 takes as its input a Rise Over Thermal (ROT) measured at receiver 104 and compares it with a threshold to determine whether the reverse link RF is overloaded];
determining a comparison value on a basis of the at least one load parameter [Yang ¶ 0015: ROC 109 sets a Reverse Activity Bit (RAB) to "1" if the threshold is exceeded and sets the RAB to "0" otherwise; ¶ 0017: the number of RAB equal to "1" in a 16-slot frame are counted and are inputted, frame-by-frame, to a long-term digital filter, wherein the value of the output the filter, i.e., the average number of RAB equal to "1" per frame, is the value of the CO metric (i.e. comparison value) used to determine transition to normal state, block state, or the mute state (here, CO, i.e., comparison value, is determined based on the ROC, i.e., load parameter)];
comparing the comparison value with a predefinable limit value; and restricting or interrupting the data transmission between the communication subscriber of the first type and at least one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type when the comparison value is greater than the predefinable limit value [Yang ¶ 0019: when the value of the CO metric exceeds Enter-mute threshold 204 (i.e. predefined limit value; see also ¶ 0006: threshold is predetermined), the system enters the mute state 20, wherein the BTS (i.e. communication subscriber of first type) determines which ATs (i.e. communication subscriber of a second type) are to be muted, i.e., are instructed to reduce their transmission rates to zero while still maintaining an active connection with the BTS].
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the step of restricting or interrupting the data transmission comprises selecting at least one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type from the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type in accordance with at least one selection criterion [Yang ¶ 0019: when the mute state is initially entered, 1/2 of the currently connected ATs are selected to be muted, and subsequently if still in the muted state another ½ of the AT are muted, etc.; ¶ 0020: ATs that are muted are addressed in a round-robin circular manner so that different ATs are muted in sequential time intervals].
Regarding claim 23, Yang teaches the method according to claim 16, which comprises transmitting, by the communication subscriber of the first type an instruction for restricting or interrupting the data transmission to a respectively selected at least one communication subscriber of the second type as soon as the comparison value is greater than the predefinable limit value [Yang ¶ 0019, when CO exceeds Enter-mute threshold 204, BTS (i.e. first type subscriber) BTS informs the selected ATs that indicate to the selected ATs that they should reduce their transmission rates to zero; ¶ 0024: grant sent from BTS to AT directing those AT to reduce transmissions to zero].
Regarding claim 24, Yang teaches the method according to claim 16, which comprises restricting or interrupting the data transmission between the communication subscriber of the first type and at least one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type until the comparison value is lower than the predefinable limit value [Yang ¶ 0019, when CO exceeds Enter-mute threshold 204, BTS (i.e. first type subscriber) BTS informs the selected ATs that indicate to the selected ATs that they should reduce their transmission rates to zero; ¶ 0020: when the value of the CO metric is less than the Enter-mute threshold 204 at the end of a predetermined time interval after the initial 1/2 of the ATs have been muted, or at the end of a predetermined time interval after any additional ATs have been muted, the number of active but muted calls will begin to be gradually reduced. This gradual reduction in muted calls continues at the end of each subsequent time interval as long as the value of the CO metric remains below the Enter-mute threshold 204 (here, ATs are muted until the CO metric is below threshold, i.e. predefinable limit value)].
Regarding claim 25, Yang teaches the method according to claim 24, which comprises at least partially canceling a restriction or interruption of the data transmission between the communication subscriber of the first type and at least one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type as soon as the comparison value is lower than a threshold value, with the proviso that the comparison value is lower than the said predefinable limit value [Yang ¶ 0020: when the value of the CO metric is less than the Enter-mute threshold 204 at the end of a predetermined time interval after the initial 1/2 of the ATs have been muted, or at the end of a predetermined time interval after any additional ATs have been muted, the number of active but muted calls will begin to be gradually reduced. This gradual reduction in muted calls continues at the end of each subsequent time interval as long as the value of the CO metric remains below the Enter-mute threshold 204 (here, the Enter-mute threshold is analogous to both a threshold value and the predefinable limit value)].
Regarding claim 26, Yang teaches the method according to claim 24, which comprises, in addition to restricting or interrupting the data transmission when the comparison value exceeds the predefinable limit value, restricting or interrupting the data transmission between the communication subscriber of the first type and at least one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type due to a predetermined event [Yang ¶ 0018: there are 3 operational states, normal, block, and mute, wherein the block state must first be reached, i.e., a predetermined event occurs, prior to any muting of the ATs].
Regarding claim 27, Yang teaches a communications system, comprising:
a communication subscriber of a first type and a plurality of communication subscribers of a second type connected to one another by way of a network [Yang ¶ 0014, Fig. 1: a plurality of ATs 101 (i.e. second type subscriber) have wireless connections established with BTS 102 (i.e. first type subscriber)];
said communication subscriber of the first type and said plurality of communication subscribers of the second type being configured to implement the method according to claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16 above].
Regarding claim 28, Yang teaches the system according to claim 27, wherein said communication subscriber of the first type is configured as a stationary communication subscriber [Yang ¶ 0002: base stations (BTS)], and each of said plurality of communication subscribers of the second type is a mobile communication subscriber [Yang ¶ 0002: mobile terminals (ATs)].
Regarding claim 31, Yang teaches a non-transitory computer program which, when executed, causes the system (10) having a communication subscriber of a first type and a plurality of communication subscribers of a second type that are connected to one another by way of a network to implement the method according to claim 16 [Yang ¶ 0031: a means for performing a specified function is intended to encompass any way of performing that function including, for example, a) a combination of circuit elements which performs that function or b) software in any form, including, therefore, firmware (i.e. code stored on computer-readable medium), microcode or the like, combined with appropriate circuitry for executing that software to perform the function].
Regarding claim 32, Yang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions that cause a system having a communication subscriber of a first type and a plurality of communication subscribers of a second type that are connected to one another by way of a network to implement the method according to claim 16 [Yang ¶ 0031: a means for performing a specified function is intended to encompass any way of performing that function including, for example, a) a combination of circuit elements which performs that function or b) software in any form, including, therefore, firmware (i.e. code stored on computer-readable medium), microcode or the like, combined with appropriate circuitry for executing that software to perform the function].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Zuniga (US 2008/0101323 A1; “Zuniga”).
Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches the method according to claim 17, however, does not explicitly disclose which comprises using a selection criterion of a first type as the at least one selection criterion, according to which the at least one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type is selected in dependence upon a level of a contribution of the at least one subscriber to the load parameter.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuniga teaches using a selection criterion of a first type as the at least one selection criterion, according to which the at least one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type is selected in dependence upon a level of a contribution of the at least one subscriber to the load parameter [Zuniga ¶¶ 0027-0029, Fig. 3: each user's contribution to noise rise is calculated, e.g., according to Equation 3 or Equation 6, wherein the user that collectively contributes the most to the noise rise and has the lowest service priority is selected and the data transmission rate of the selected user is reduced].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determining to mute or throttle communications of one or more ATs based on a load factor associated with uplink communications as taught by Yang, with the method of selecting users to throttle uplink communications based on a contribution to load of a communication system as taught by Zuniga. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate interference in multi-user wireless communication systems [Zuniga ¶¶ 0002-0003].
Regarding claim 20, Yang teaches the method according to claim 17, however, does not explicitly disclose which comprises: allocating a relevance to the communication subscribers of the second type; and using a selection criterion of a second type as the at least one selection criterion, according to which the at least one communication subscriber of the second type is selected in dependence upon the relevance allocated to the respective communication subscriber.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuniga teaches allocating a relevance to the communication subscribers of the second type; and using a selection criterion of a second type as the at least one selection criterion, according to which the at least one communication subscriber of the second type is selected in dependence upon the relevance allocated to the respective communication subscriber [Zuniga ¶¶ 0027-0029, Fig. 3: each user's contribution to noise rise is calculated, e.g., according to Equation 3 or Equation 6, wherein the user that collectively contributes the most to the noise rise and has the lowest service priority (i.e. relevance) is selected and the data transmission rate of the selected user is reduced].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determining to mute or throttle communications of one or more ATs based on a load factor associated with uplink communications as taught by Yang, with the method of selecting users to throttle uplink communications based on a contribution to load of a communication system as taught by Zuniga. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate interference in multi-user wireless communication systems [Zuniga ¶¶ 0002-0003].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Zuniga in view of Schillings (US 2016/0283279 A1; “Schillings”).
Regarding claim 19, Yang in view of Zuniga teaches the method according to claim 18, however, does not explicitly disclose which comprises measuring the level of the contribution to the load parameter on a basis of at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of a computing power, a storage space, a number of communication channels, and a number of services that are claimed for executing the data transmission by the at least one communication subscriber of the second type.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Schillings teaches measuring the level of the contribution to the load parameter on a basis of at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of a computing power, a storage space, a number of communication channels, and a number of services that are claimed for executing the data transmission by the at least one communication subscriber of the second type [Schillings ¶ 0045: a first resource utilization, e.g., processor utilization, network bandwidth utilization, memory utilization, power consumption, user access, etc. of the client device, and a second resource utilization of the second task, e.g., of the second client device, are determined (here, contribution to a load for each client may be determined including one of processor utilization, network bandwidth utilization, memory utilization, power consumption, user access); ¶ 0048: resource access may be modified based upon the first resource utilization and/or the second resource utilization exceeding the resource consumption threshold].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determining to mute or throttle communications of one or more ATs based on a load factor associated with uplink communications as taught by Yang, with the method of selecting users to throttle uplink communications based on an evaluation of client device processor utilization, network bandwidth utilization, memory utilization, power consumption, and user access. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve network bandwidth and/or computing resources utilization efficiency [Schillings ¶ 0041].
Claim(s) 21-22 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Cheng et al. (US 2016/0044530; “Cheng”).
Regarding claim 21, Yang teaches the method according to claim 17, however, does not explicitly disclose which comprises: allocating a relevance to data that is to be transmitted; and using a selection criterion of a third type as the at least one selection criterion, according to which the at least one communication subscriber of the second type is selected in dependence upon the relevance of the data to be transmitted by the respective communication subscriber.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Cheng teaches allocating a relevance to data that is to be transmitted [Cheng ¶ 0025: eNB selects the concerned UE(s) and/or concerned target traffics) based on the concerned UE characteristic(s) and/or the traffic characteristic(s), e.g., all of the best effort traffic flow(s) are considered as concerned traffic(s) (here, a relevance, e.g., whether traffic is “concerned”, is determined based on the traffic characteristics)]; and
using a selection criterion of a third type as the at least one selection criterion, according to which the at least one communication subscriber of the second type is selected in dependence upon the relevance of the data to be transmitted by the respective communication subscriber [Cheng ¶ 0025: eNB enables a Classifier which filters best effort traffic flow(s), and the eNB selects all the UE(s) that the best effort traffic flow(s) filtered by the Classifier associated to as concerned UE(s); ¶ 0026: congestion control messages sent/broadcasted to the concerned UE (here, the filtering provided by classifier is analogous to using a third selection criteria, wherein the UEs selected according to the third criteria are indicated to perform congestion control on the respective flows)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determining to mute or throttle communications of one or more ATs based on a load factor associated with uplink communications as taught by Yang, with the method of performing congestion control based on a traffic flow priority as taught by Cheng. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate poor communication performance in multi-user wireless communication systems [Cheng ¶ 0003].
Regarding claim 22, Yang in view of Cheng teaches the method according to claim 21, however, Yang does not explicitly disclose which comprises, when data of high relevance is to be transmitted by one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type, restricting or interrupting a transmission of data of low relevance in accordance with the selection criterion of the third type.
However, Cheng teaches when data of high relevance is to be transmitted by one of the plurality of communication subscribers of the second type, restricting or interrupting a transmission of data of low relevance in accordance with the selection criterion of the third type [Cheng ¶ 0034: eNB 204 may consider to prioritize and transmit the DL traffic flow(s)/bearer(s) included in the UE preference indication sent from the UE 202 while de-prioritize other traffic flow(s)/bearer(s) of the UE 202, and may for example, suspend and/or throttle (i.e., not to transmit the data packets in a period of time, and/or to reduce the frequency or the amount of data packets transmitted) the de-prioritized traffic flow(s)/bearer(s) of the UE 202].
The motivation to combine these references is illustrated in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 29, Yang teaches the system according to claim 28, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein said communication subscribers of the second type are vehicles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Cheng teaches wherein said communication subscribers of the second type are vehicles [Cheng ¶ 0017: congestion mitigation process may further comprise determining at least one concerned target UE and/or at least one concerned target traffic (e.g., specific IP flow(s)/RB(s) associated with the same or associated with different Services) to be de-prioritized; ¶ 0015: a UE may be a fixed computer device operating in a mobile environment, such as a bus, train, an airplane, a boat, a car].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determining to mute or throttle communications of one or more ATs based on a load factor associated with uplink communications as taught by Yang, with the method of performing congestion control with user devices that are rail-bound vehicles. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate poor communication performance in multi-user wireless communication systems [Cheng ¶ 0003].
Regarding claim 30, Yang teaches the system according to claim 28, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein said communication subscribers of the second type are rail-bound vehicles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Cheng teaches wherein said communication subscribers of the second type are rail-bound vehicles [Cheng ¶ 0017: congestion mitigation process may further comprise determining at least one concerned target UE and/or at least one concerned target traffic (e.g., specific IP flow(s)/RB(s) associated with the same or associated with different Services) to be de-prioritized; ¶ 0015: a UE may be a fixed computer device operating in a mobile environment, such as a bus, train, an airplane, a boat, a car].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determining to mute or throttle communications of one or more ATs based on a load factor associated with uplink communications as taught by Yang, with the method of performing congestion control with user devices that are rail-bound vehicles. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate poor communication performance in multi-user wireless communication systems [Cheng ¶ 0003].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P COX whose telephone number is (571)272-2728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/BRIAN P COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights