DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/12/2024 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 8 are presented for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected for not being descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitations related to “first transmission unit…,” “second transmission unit…,” “management unit…,” and “adjustment unit…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. “first transmission unit,” “second transmission unit,” “management unit,” and “adjustment unit” show no structural modifier in the claim.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows no corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original filed specification nor the drawing fails to clearly define or describe in detail of the “first transmission unit,” “second transmission unit,” “management unit,” and “adjustment unit” of claims 1-8. Applicant's original filed specification fails to provide sufficient description in such a way as to enable one of ordinary skilled in the art to make and/or use of the claimed invention. For the purpose of this examination “first transmission unit,” “second transmission unit,” “management unit,” and “adjustment unit” will be any arbitrary hardware(s) or software(s) performing identical functions.
Without proper disclosure of corresponding structure, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claims. For example:
What structure performs the “establishing” function of the management unit?
What structure performs the “allocating” function for the service period?
What structure performs the “notifying” function of the adjustment unit?
What structure performs the “postponing” and “padding” functions of the first transmission unit?
What algorithm causes the adjustment unit to “cause the one transmission unit to wait”? Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey that the inventor possessed the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.
For claims 1-8, the filed specification fails to explicitly state and define the specific structural content(s) required to perform the functions of the claimed generic placeholder, such as: “first transmission unit,” “second transmission unit,” “management unit,” and “adjustment unit”.
Without corresponding structure, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claims. For example:
What structure performs the “establishing” function of the management unit?
What structure performs the “allocating” function for the service period?
What structure performs the “notifying” function of the adjustment unit?
What structure performs the “postponing” and “padding” functions of the first transmission unit?
What algorithm causes the adjustment unit to “cause the one transmission unit to wait”? Because these limitations are purely functional and lack corresponding structure, the claims are indefinite.
Applicant may overcome these rejections by amending the claims to recite sufficient structure or by pointing to specification disclosure that describes the corresponding structure for each claimed 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naribole et al. (US Pub. 20210076340 A1) in view of Cherian et al. (US Pub. 20220078844 A1).
For claims 1, 7, and 8, Naribole discloses a transmission station comprising: a first transmission unit; a second transmission unit (Figs. 1 and 3. access point uses multiple radios that operate at the same time, and the illustrated AP transmits on two channels. Each radio corresponds to a claimed transmission unit) [0003]; and
a management unit configured to establish, with a reception station, a multi-link in which a first channel is allocated to the first transmission unit and a second channel is allocated to the second transmission unit (Figs. 1, 3, and 5. The AP establishes a multi-channel basic service set with a station and coordinates simultaneous downlink operation on a pair of channels. The AP scheduling logic is the claimed management function) [¶¶ 0006, 0025, 0045], and
wherein the first transmission unit is configured to postpone transmission of first data and padding in accordance with transmission of second data by the second transmission unit (Figs. 2C and 3. One channel’s PPDU with an ongoing PPDU on the other channel by using fragmentation and padding. It also refuses to initiate a conflicting transmission and retries after the protected interval. With the channel labels interchanged, this teaches postponement based on the other unit’s transmission timing; the reference itself, not a second reference, supplies both aspects) [¶¶ 0038, 0041].
But Naribole doesn’t explicitly teach allocate a service period to the first channel,
when a first occupancy period for transmitting the first data and the padding overlaps with the service period.
However, Cherian discloses allocate a service period to the first channel (Figs. 7 and 9. The AP establishes a restricted target wake time session containing a service period and reserves a wireless channel for that period) [¶¶ 0077, 0107],
when a first occupancy period for transmitting the first data and the padding overlaps with the service period (Fig. 7. nonmember stations to end or terminate their TXOPs at or before the restricted service period. Under prospective channel scheduling, an occupancy interval that would cross that boundary must be shortened or deferred) [¶ 0083].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data transmission use in a mobile 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 would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Naribole with Cherian to ensure proper transmission period to optimize data flow, thus, improving network efficiency.
Claim 7 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Naribole further discloses a transmission method of a transmission station including (Figs. 1 and 3. access point uses multiple radios that operate at the same time, and the illustrated AP transmits on two channels. Each radio corresponds to a claimed transmission unit) [0003]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 8 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Naribole further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a transmission program used in a transmission station including (Figs. 1 and 3. access point uses multiple radios that operate at the same time, and the illustrated AP transmits on two channels. Each radio corresponds to a claimed transmission unit) [0003]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claim 4, Naribole as modified by Cherian, Cherian further the first transmission unit is configured to transmit data having a lower latency than the first data in the service period (Fig. 7. The restricted target wake time service period is reserved for low-latency or latency-sensitive traffic, while other stations or traffic remain outside the protected class) [¶¶ 0077–0078].
For claim 5, Naribole as modified by Cherian, Cherian further a notification of the service period is given by a beacon signal (Fig. 7. The AP advertises the restricted target wake time schedule by placing a TWT element containing the service-period timing and channel information in beacon frames) [¶ 0079].
For claim 6, Naribole as modified by Cherian, Naribole further the first occupancy period includes a period of receiving acknowledgement (Ack) from the reception station (Fig. 2C. reserves the medium for a data exchange and the subsequent acknowledgment, and its overlap analysis expressly accounts for the acknowledgment-reception interval) [¶ 0041].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naribole et al. (US Pub. 20210076340 A1) in view of Cherian et al. (US Pub. 20220078844 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US Pub. 20210337564 A1).
For claim 2, Naribole, as modified by Cherian, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Naribole, as modified by Cherian, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Kwon.
Kwon discloses an adjustment unit configured to notify each of the first transmission unit and the second transmission unit of a longest occupancy period of a second occupancy period for transmitting the first data and a third occupancy period for transmitting the second data when the first transmission unit acquires a transmission right of the first data and the second transmission unit acquires a transmission right of the second data (Figs. 7A and 7B. Two triggers indicate a common response duration on two links, and identifies a reference response having the longest duration among immediate responses. The disclosure is close to distributing a maximum duration to both links.) [¶¶ 0117, 0122–0123],
wherein the first transmission unit is configured to add the padding to the first data so that an end time of the first occupancy period aligns with an end time of the longest occupancy period (Fig. 7A. A response on one link adds padding according to the indicated common duration so that the responses on the two links finish together) [¶ 0118].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data transmission use in a mobile 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 would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Naribole and Cherian with Kwon to ensure proper adjustment for different occupancy period to optimize data transmission, thus, improving data throughput.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220141885 A1 US 20200275514 A1 US 20240056884 A1 US 9232477 B2
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights