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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schweizer (US Publication 2020/0287993 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Schweizer (US Publication 2020/0287993 A1) teaches, a method comprising, at a receiving system: accessing a response mapping for the receiving system defining: a set of safety-critical functions of the receiving system (see paragraph 36; Determining the latency is hence again significantly improved and is then suitable for particularly safety-critical applications) associated with a safety-critical latency threshold (see paragraph 44; the client determines the latency, compares this latency with at least one threshold value, and outputs an indicator if the latency exceeds the threshold value); and a set of safety responses corresponding to the set of safety-critical functions (see paragraph 37; an interaction latency is determined in addition to the absolute frame latency, and, for example, precedes the previously described absolute frame latency. The interaction latency describes the time length required for an input by the user at the client to lead to a change in the user interface at the server); calculating an arrival time of a first message in a series of messages; calculating a latency of the first message based on the arrival time of the first message and an expected arrival time for the first message (see paragraph 42; in determining the absolute frame latency, the latency may be determined as the relative latency between two successive frames. Thus, the relative latency is obtained, for example, as the difference between the end times, receive times, or arrival times of two successive frames at the client); and initiating the set of safety responses in response to the latency of the first message exceeding the safety-critical latency threshold (see paragraph 43; on the basis of the relative latency, for example, whether the display is being refreshed regularly or whether the transfer is frozen or halted (e.g., as a result of a slow or broken connection). In this context, a transfer rate between server and client may also be determined in order to avoid a transmission over a slow network, and in such a situation, to warn the user accordingly that the transfer rate is too low to guarantee adequate safety; see paragraph 44; the client determines the latency, compares this latency with at least one threshold value, and outputs an indicator if the latency exceeds the threshold value).
In regards to claim 16, Schweizer teaches, wherein accessing the response mapping comprises accessing the response mapping defining a set of real-time-response-critical functions of the receiving system associated with a real-time-response-critical latency threshold; and further comprising halting the set of real-time-response-critical functions in response to the latency of the first message exceeding the real-time-response-critical latency threshold (see paragraph 45; the client determines the latency, compares the latency with at least one threshold value, and disables the user interface of the server on the client if the latency exceeds the threshold value. Any input via the client is thereby blocked. Corresponding input devices may be blocked for this purpose (e.g., the inputs of these devices are not forwarded to the server). This prevents a potential input mistake, for example, as a result of an input-element assignment that has changed in the meantime but is not shown owing to the latency. Also, inputs that are in progress may be interrupted if the threshold value is exceeded).
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) 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (US Publication 2023/0179990 A1) further in view of Schweizer (US Publication 2020/0287993 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Speidel et al. (US Publication 2023/0179990 A1) teaches, a method comprising, at a receiving system: calculating a first arrival time of a first message in a series of messages (see paragraph 173, The Propagation Delay is determined by the difference in the actual and the expected Time-of-Arrival of the PRACH); calculating a first latency of the first message based on the first arrival time of the first message and a first expected arrival time of the first message (see paragraph 173; The Propagation Delay is determined by the difference in the actual and the expected Time-of-Arrival of the PRACH).
In further regards to claim 1, Speidel fails to teach a propagation delay threshold. Thus Speidel fails to teach, in response to the first latency of the first message exceeding a latency threshold associated with a function of the receiving system, initiating a response corresponding to the function.
Schweizer (US Publication 2020/0287993 A1)however teaches, in response to the first latency of the first message exceeding a latency threshold associated with a function of the receiving system, initiating a response corresponding to the function (see paragraph 165; Reducing the traffic sent to connection 1 allows the wireless network 1 to recover and reduce the measured latency. If the latency decreases past the set threshold, the Buffer Management and Transport Controller 28 may be able to once again increase the data packets sent to that connection (e.g. network 1 and RF interface 1). However, if the network latency continues to increase, the Buffer Management and Transport Controller 28 may continue to decrease the traffic sent to connection 1; see paragraph 175; Latency jitter--A filtered average of inter-packet time differences in network latency L1 352. This is not the traditional calculation of jitter used for VoIP and other real-time protocols. For those protocols they maintain an expected arrival time for packets (e.g. every 20 ms), and jitter is calculated as a filtered average of the differences between actual and expected packet arrival times).
Schweizer and Spediel both relate to improving cellular communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of latency responses as taught by Schweizer into the teachings of Spediel. The motivation to do so would be to improve transmission by dynamically adapting to transmission conditions.
In regards to claims 2-3, Speidiel and Schweizer in combination teach all the limitations of the parent claims as stated above.
However, Speidel fails to teach, wherein initiating the response comprises initiating the response comprising a safety response corresponding to a safety-critical function of the receiving system in response to the first latency of the first message exceeding a safety-critical latency threshold associated with the safety-critical function of the receiving system and wherein initiating the response comprises transitioning the safety-critical function into a safety mode.
Schweizer however teaches, wherein initiating the response comprises initiating the response comprising a safety response corresponding to a safety-critical function of the receiving system in response to the first latency of the first message exceeding a safety-critical latency threshold associated with the safety-critical function of the receiving system and wherein initiating the response comprises transitioning the safety-critical function into a safety mode (see paragraph 58; the frames from the server are forwarded by the proxy at a frame rate that is adapted dynamically by ascertaining a round-trip time between the server and the client, and depending on the round-trip time, forwarding only a subset of frames to the client. This achieves dynamic limiting, in which the frame rate is adapted dynamically to a, for example, varying, processing capacity of the client. The round-trip time (RTT) has already been described above and equals the sum of the time taken to transfer a frame from the server to the client and the time taken for the client to reply to the server. If the round-trip time exceeds a defined upper threshold value, the frame rate is reduced; if the round-trip time goes below a different, lower threshold rate, the frame rate is increased).
Schweizer and Spediel both relate to improving cellular communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of latency responses as taught by Schweizer into the teachings of Spediel. The motivation to do so would be to improve transmission by dynamically adapting to transmission conditions.
In regards to claim 19, Spediel teaches, a method comprising, at a receiving system: calculating an arrival time of a safety message (see paragraph 173, The Propagation Delay is determined by the difference in the actual and the expected Time-of-Arrival of the PRACH); calculating a latency of the safety message based on the arrival time of the safety message and an expected arrival time for the safety message (see paragraph 173; The Propagation Delay is determined by the difference in the actual and the expected Time-of-Arrival of the PRACH).
In further regards to claim 19, Speidel fails to teach a propagation delay threshold. Thus Speidel fails to teach, in response to the latency of the safety message exceeding a safety-critical latency threshold associated with a safety-critical function of the receiving system, initiating a safety response corresponding to the safety-critical function.
Schweizer (US Publication 2020/0287993 A1)however teaches, in response to the latency of the safety message exceeding a safety-critical latency threshold associated with a safety-critical function of the receiving system, initiating a safety response corresponding to the safety-critical function (see paragraph 43; on the basis of the relative latency, for example, whether the display is being refreshed regularly or whether the transfer is frozen or halted (e.g., as a result of a slow or broken connection). In this context, a transfer rate between server and client may also be determined in order to avoid a transmission over a slow network, and in such a situation, to warn the user accordingly that the transfer rate is too low to guarantee adequate safety; see paragraph 44; the client determines the latency, compares this latency with at least one threshold value, and outputs an indicator if the latency exceeds the threshold value).
Spediel and Schweizer both relate to improving cellular communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of latency responses as taught by Schweizer into the teachings of Spediel. The motivation to do so would be to improve transmission by dynamically adapting to transmission conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14, 17-18 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claims 4 and 20 the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination, accessing a message schedule indicating the first expected arrival time for the first message based on a clock reference for a transmitting system in communication with the receiving system.
In regards to claim 7, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination wherein calculating the first latency of the first message comprises calculating a cumulative latency for the first message based on a group of messages preceding the first message in the series of messages.
In regards to claim 9, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination calculating the first expected arrival time of the first message based on an arrival time of a message preceding the first message in the series of messages.
In regards to claim 10, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination accessing a response mapping for the receiving system defining: a set of functions of the receiving system associated with the latency threshold; and a set of responses, each response in the set of responses corresponding to a function in the set of functions.
In regards to claim 11, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination accessing a response mapping for the receiving system defining: o a set of real-time-response-critical functions of the receiving system associated with a real-time-response-critical latency threshold; and o a set of restricted modes corresponding to the set of real-time-response-critical functions; and in response to the first latency of the first message exceeding the real-time-response-critical latency threshold, initiating the set of restricted modes corresponding to the corresponding to the set of real-time-response-critical functions.
In regards to claim 12, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination, wherein initiating the response comprises halting the function comprising a response-critical function of the receiving system in response to the first latency of the first message exceeding a response-critical latency threshold associated with the response-critical function.
In regards to claim 13, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination halting a set of response-critical functions of the receiving system in response to the first latency of the first message exceeding a message period.
In regards to claim 14, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination wherein calculating the first arrival time comprises calculating the first arrival time of the first message from a transmitting system in communication with the receiving system via a communication link; and wherein initiating the response comprises transitioning to an alternative communication link between the receiving system and the transmitting system.
In regards to claim 17, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination wherein accessing the response mapping comprises accessing the response mapping defining: o a set of real-time-response-critical functions of the receiving system associated with a real-time-response-critical latency threshold exceeding the safety-critical latency threshold; and o a set of restricted modes corresponding to the set of real-time-response-critical functions; and further comprising initiating the set of restricted modes corresponding to the set of real-time-response-critical functions in response to the latency of the first message exceeding the real-time-response-critical latency threshold.
In regards to claim 18, the cited prior art fails to teach, either individually or in combination generating a message schedule indicating the expected arrival time for the first message based on configuration parameters received from the transmitting system.
Relevant Prior Art
Prior art Akkarakaran et al. (US Publication 2022/0007226 a1) teaches, handling front end group delay by measuring the RTTM arrival time and then calculating the actual RTTR arrival time (see paragraph 1200.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-8786. 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.
/JAY P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
