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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 09/19/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 18-20 of Patent No. US 12127294 B2 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1, 13, 20 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claims 1, 13, 20 of Patent No. US 12127294 B2 (reference application) by omitting limitations, such as to produce a result; and suspending, by the first wireless device and while the data rate sustains, transmission of the plurality of data packets by a suspended core of the first core or the second core based on the result.
The table below maps the claims in the instant applications to corresponding claims which have substantially the same limitations [up to and including limitations of parent and intervening claims] in Patent No. US 12127294 B2 (reference application).
Claim # in Instant Application
(18889617 )
Claim # in Patent No. US 12127294 B2
[Claim 1] A method of wireless communication performed by a first wireless device, comprising: transmitting, to a second wireless device, a plurality of data packets by a first core of the first wireless device and a second core of the first wireless device, wherein a data packet is transmitted by at least one of the first core or the second core; receiving, from the second wireless device, a first core acknowledgement (ACK) of the data packet by the first core and a second core ACK of the data packet by the second core; determining, by the first wireless device, a function of a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the first core ACK and a RSSI of the second core ACK; and determining, by the first wireless device, whether the function satisfies a threshold.
A method of wireless communication performed by a first wireless device, comprising: transmitting, to a second wireless device and at a data rate, a plurality of data packets by a first core of the first wireless device and a second core of the first wireless device, wherein a data packet is transmitted by at least one of the first core or the second core; receiving, from the second wireless device, a first core acknowledgement (ACK) of the data packet by the first core and a second core ACK of the data packet by the second core; determining, by the first wireless device, that a function of a power metric of the first core ACK and a power metric of the second core ACK satisfies a threshold to produce a result; and suspending, by the first wireless device and while the data rate sustains, transmission of the plurality of data packets by a suspended core of the first core or the second core based on the result.
2
1
4
3
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
11
13
13
14
13
16
14
17
15
18
18
19
19
20
20
Claims 3, 12, 15, are rejected for depending from rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 11, 13-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chie-Ming Chou et al (US 20160119846 A1) in view of Mohammad Naghshvar et al (US 20170063484 A1).
For Claim 1, Chou disclose a method of wireless communication performed by a first wireless device (Chou teaches, in ¶ 0036, that FIG. 4 is a block diagram of the wireless entity 230 that includes a backhaul module 236_1, a cellular network module 236_3, a wireless local network module 236_5, Listen-before-Talk (LBT) module 236_7), comprising:
transmitting, to a second wireless device, a plurality of data packets by a first core of the first wireless device and a second core of the first wireless device, wherein a data packet is transmitted by at least one of the first core or the second core (Chou teaches, in ¶ 0047, that In step S610, the processing module 236 of the wireless entity 230 may receive traffic loading information of a licensed spectrum of the BS 210 using the cellular network through backhaul module 236_1. In this embodiment, the traffic loading information may be corresponding to at least one of or a combination of parameters but not limited to the number of UEs 250 connected with the BS 210, a loading quantification value indicating the traffic loading indication, the number of the random access attempting in the BS 210, a total traffic volume in the BS 210 during a period of time, and request throughput information from the UEs during a period of time);
determining, by the first wireless device, a function of a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the first core and a RSSI of the second core (Chou teaches, in ¶ 0061, If the UE 250 reports that the received signal exceeds a signal strength threshold, then the UE 250 would activate a component carrier on the unlicensed spectrum for the UE 250 to use the cellular network according to the signal command).
Chou also teaches, in ¶ 0057, that the processing module 236 may turn on the wireless local network module 236_5 such as Wi-Fi chip and turn off the cellular network module 236_3 such as LTE chip. Chou admonishes, in ¶ 0067, that It should be noticed that wireless entity 230 can switch the operating mode from one communication mode to another based on the specific criteria.
Chou fails to expressly disclose receiving, from the second wireless device, a first core acknowledgement (ACK) of the data packet by the first core and a second core ACK of the data packet by the second core; and determining, by the first wireless device, whether the function satisfies a threshold.
However, Naghshvar, in the analogous art, discloses receiving, from the second wireless device, a first core acknowledgement (ACK) of the data packet by the first core and a second core ACK of the data packet by the second core (Naghshvar teaches, in ¶ 0113, This may also occur, for example, where another Wi-Fi device or the LTE AP cell causes interference to the Wi-Fi device transmitting ACK signals to the Wi-Fi AP. Naghshvar also teaches, in ¶ 0110, estimate the interference level caused to the Wi-Fi device (e.g., by device 801 as an LTE AP) using RSSI.sub.ACK … and medium utilization estimating component 812 can utilize the RSSI of the signal as an indication of pathloss (e.g., to the LTE AP)); and determining, by the first wireless device, whether the function satisfies a threshold (Fang teaches, in ¶ 0109, determine if the RSSI of the data packet (RSSI.sub.Data) is less than the first threshold RSSI (RSSI_Thr), and whether a function of the RSSI of the data packet, an RSSI of a corresponding ACK packet (RSSI.sub.ACK), and the MCS (also referred to as ƒ(RSSI.sub.Data, RSSI.sub.ACK, MCS.sub.DL) herein) is greater than a second threshold (γ)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Chou with the thresholds taught in Naghshvar. The motivation is in order to enable the network operator to achieve a desired trade-off between LTE performance and Wi-Fi protection [Naghshvar: ¶ 0108].
For Claim 2, Chou disclose a method of wireless communication, comprising: after determining that the function satisfies the threshold, suspending, by the first wireless device, transmission of the plurality of data packets by a suspended core of the first core or the second core (Chou teaches, in ¶ 0057, that when the traffic loading indication is medium … the processing module 236 may turn on the wireless local network module 236_5 such as Wi-Fi chip and turn off the cellular network module 236_3 such as LTE chip).
For Claim 3, Chou disclose a method of wireless communication, comprising: after determining that the function does not satisfy the threshold, continuing, by the first wireless device, transmission of the plurality of data packets by the first core and the second core (Chou teaches, in ¶ 0066, that when the traffic loading indication is not low …the processing module 236 may turn on the cellular network module 236_3 and the wireless local network module 236_5 together).
For Claim 11, Chou disclose a method of wireless communication, wherein: the first core comprises a first transmitter unit for transmitting the plurality of data packets, and a first receiver unit for receiving the first core ACK of the data packet (Chou teaches, in ¶ 0036, that FIG. 4 is a block diagram of the wireless entity 230 that includes a transmitting module 231, a receiving module 233 .. backhaul module 236_1, a cellular network module 236_3, a wireless local network module 236_5), and the second core comprises a second transmitter unit for transmitting the plurality of data packets, and a second receiver unit for receiving the second core ACK of the data packet (Chou teaches, in ¶ 0033, that The transmitting module 211 transmits downlink signals wirelessly, and the receiving module 213 receives uplink signals wirelessly).
For Claims 13-15, please refer to the rejection of Claims 1-3, above.
For Claim 16, Chou disclose a wireless device, wherein: the first core is the suspended core when the RSSI of the first core ACK is less than the RSSI of the second core ACK, and the second core is the suspended core when the RSSI of the first core ACK is greater than the RSSI of the second core ACK (Chou teaches, in ¶ 0070, that Then, the Wi-Fi AP 835 would send a Beacon signal and the UE 850 can perform Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) measurement (S807). Subsequently, the UE 850 would perform Wi-Fi data transmission with the Wi-Fi AP 835 when the RSSI is sufficiently good (S809)).
For Claim 20, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Claim 4-5, 12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chie-Ming Chou et al (US 20160119846 A1) in view of Mohammad Naghshvar et al (US 20170063484 A1) as applied to claim 1, or 13 above, and further in view of Xiubin Sha et al (US 20210400567 A1).
For Claims 4, 17, Chou and Naghshvar disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of an absolute value of a difference of the first RSSI and the second RSSI.
However, Sha, in the analogous art, discloses an absolute value of a difference of the first RSSI and the second RSSI (Sha teaches, in ¶ 0085, that The absolute value of the difference between the RSRP measurement value of the serving cell and the reference RSRP is used as the amount of change of the RSRP). Sha also teaches, in ¶ 0040, that The terminal 220 may transmit a D-PUR resource configuration/reconfiguration/release request to the eNB 230. This request 202 may include … a data volume, a data packet size to be transmitted, a data transmission interval, and/or a data transmission start time, a data volume and power headroom report (DPR), an extended DPR (eDPR), a power headroom report (PHR) information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Chou and Naghshvar with the pre-configured uplink resource (PUR) taught in Sha. The motivation is to improve efficiency (including energy efficiency) of small data transmission [(Sha: ¶ 0037].
For Claim 5, Chou and Naghshvar disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of adjusting the threshold based on at least one of a data rate of the plurality of data packets or a power metric type.
However, Sha, in the analogous art, discloses adjusting the threshold based on at least one of a data rate of the plurality of data packets or a power metric type (Sha teaches, in ¶ 0084, that The statistical method of the RSRP variation includes the UE recording or updating the RSRP of the serving cell to the reference RSRP at a time of at least one of the following: the UE receives the PUR resource configuration or reconfiguration information; the UE receives the TA update indication; and/or the UE performs the data transmission on the PUR resource). Sha also teaches, in ¶ 0040, that The terminal 220 may transmit a D-PUR resource configuration/reconfiguration/release request to the eNB 230. This request 202 may include … a data volume, a data packet size to be transmitted, a data transmission interval, and/or a data transmission start time, a data volume and power headroom report (DPR), an extended DPR (eDPR), a power headroom report (PHR) information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Chou and Naghshvar with the pre-configured uplink resource (PUR) taught in Sha. The motivation is to improve efficiency (including energy efficiency) of small data transmission [(Sha: ¶ 0037].
For Claim 12, Chou and Naghshvar disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of determining a lowest RSSI based on a comparison.
However, Sha, in the analogous art, discloses determining a lowest RSSI based on a comparison (Sha teaches, in ¶ 0145, determining, by the terminal, that a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) change falls below a RSRP change threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Chou and Naghshvar with the pre-configured uplink resource (PUR) taught in Sha. The motivation is to improve efficiency (including energy efficiency) of small data transmission [(Sha: ¶ 0037].
Claims 9, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chie-Ming Chou et al (US 20160119846 A1) in view of Mohammad Naghshvar et al (US 20170063484 A1) as applied to claim 2 or 14 above, and further in view of Don Gunasekara et al (US 20190373301 A1).
For Claim 9, Chou and Naghshvar disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of adjusting a data rate of the transmitting the plurality of data packets to a second data rate with a modulation coding scheme (MCS) based on at least one of: a coding metric, or a number of ACKs received per unit of time, from the second wireless device, in response to transmitting the plurality of data packets.
However, Gunasekara, in the analogous art, discloses adjusting a data rate of the transmitting the plurality of data packets to a second data rate with a modulation coding scheme (MCS) based on at least one of: a coding metric, or a number of ACKs received per unit of time, from the second wireless device, in response to transmitting the plurality of data packets (Gunasekara teaches, in ¶ 0157, that if prescribed performance criteria (e.g., data rate, BER/PER, RSSI, SINR, etc.) are not met, then the CME 221 invokes the CC radio resource management (RRM) protocol (e.g., as described below and with respect to FIGS. 5-5b herein), instructing the AP and/or its own WLAN interface to change one or more parameters in an attempt to improve WLAN link performance). Gunasekara also teaches, in ¶ 0219, that If not, follow-on adjustments to the AP (which may include additional power increases, change in MCS, variation in spatial diversity profile, or other changes), and/or the client (e.g., ED threshold change via the CM 221) are implemented via step 538..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Chou and Naghshvar with the multi-RAT capability device taught in Gunasekara. The motivation is to dynamically adjusts transmit characteristics of the AP(s) to manage interference between the coexisting networks [(Gunasekara: Abstract].
For Claim 18, Chou and Naghshvar disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of adjusting the data rate from an initial data rate with a modulation coding scheme (MCS) based on at least one of: a number of spatial streams, a coding metric, or a number of ACKs received per unit of time in response to transmitting an initial plurality of data packets by the first core and the second core.
However, Gunasekara, in the analogous art, discloses adjusting the data rate from an initial data rate with a modulation coding scheme (MCS) based on at least one of: a number of spatial streams, a coding metric, or a number of ACKs received per unit of time in response to transmitting an initial plurality of data packets by the first core and the second core (Gunasekara teaches, in ¶ 0157, that if prescribed performance criteria (e.g., data rate, BER/PER, RSSI, SINR, etc.) are not met, then the CME 221 invokes the CC radio resource management (RRM) protocol (e.g., as described below and with respect to FIGS. 5-5b herein), instructing the AP and/or its own WLAN interface to change one or more parameters in an attempt to improve WLAN link performance). Gunasekara also teaches, in ¶ 0219, that If not, follow-on adjustments to the AP (which may include additional power increases, change in MCS, variation in spatial diversity profile, or other changes), and/or the client (e.g., ED threshold change via the CM 221) are implemented via step 538..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Chou and Naghshvar with the multi-RAT capability device taught in Gunasekara. The motivation is to dynamically adjusts transmit characteristics of the AP(s) to manage interference between the coexisting networks [(Gunasekara: Abstract].
For Claim 19, please refer to the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu et al (US 20120315905 A1) teaches mobile devices having multiple radios and, more particularly, to the automatic handover from one radio to another within the mobile device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)2705629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at (571)2707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights