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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024, 07/14/2025, and 05/25/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, in view of US 2023/0328623 A1 by Fang et al. (hereafter referred to as Fang), in view of US 2022/0377839 A1 by Jang et al. (hereafter referred to as Jang).
Regarding claim 1, Fang teaches An electronic device (see at least Fig. 10) comprising:
a transceiver (see at least Fig. 10 (1016, 1024)) configured to adapt between single-link operation (SLO) and multi-link (MLO) operation (see at least ¶ [0031]; “The Service-Based Transmit Stream/Category Measurement Report is enhanced from the Transmit Stream/Category Measurement Report for the QoS measurement on a single link between a STA and an AP per traffic identifier (TID). The information in the Measurement Report may include information such as, for example: transmitted MSDU count, MSDU discarded count, MSDU failed count, average queue delay, and average transmit delay. Moreover, with respect to service-based transmission path measurement, a Service-Based Transmit Stream/Category Measurement Report provides the transmission QoS performance measurement of a path between a non-AP MLD and the ML ESS Manager/Gateway (e.g., at the Link Layer).”); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver (see at least Fig. 10 (1012, 1016, 1022, 1024)), configured to:
determine a quality of service (QoS) of a video call for a number of time steps;
determine, based on the QoS of the video call over the number of time steps, whether to adjust a number of links utilized by the transceiver; and
in response to a determination to adjust the number of links, adjust the number of links utilized by the transceiver (see at least ¶ [0037]; “The non-AP MLD may select and switch a transmission path for the time-sensitive traffic based on its QoS Profile and the ML Measurement Report, and the non-AP MLD may also distribute other traffic(s) among all available paths to balance load. In addition, the ML ESS Manager/Gateway may autonomously initiate traffic load balancing based on ML Measurement result(s).”).
Fang does not appear to specifically disclose a video call.
In the same field of endeavor, a video call (see at least ¶ [0044], [0296], [0301]-[0302; where Jang discloses the enabling/disabling between multi-link and single-link STA. The STA may support communication for various communication services such as voice calls, video calls, data communication, and self-driving (autonomous-driving), or the like.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang with Jang in order to support various communication standards.
Regarding claim 7, Fang in view of Jang teaches the electronic device of Claim 1. In addition, Fang teaches wherein to determine the QoS of the video call, the processor is further configured to: classify the quality of the video call, according to a decision tree, based on at least one medium access control (MAC) layer feature; and determine the QoS of the video call based on the classification (see at least ¶ [0026]; “network 100 may involve at least an MLD 110 and an MLD 120 communicating wirelessly with each other in an enhanced service set (ESS) 130 in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 standards (e.g. IEEE 802.11be and beyond”).
As to claims 8 and 14, see rejection of claims 1 and 7, except this is a claim to a method with the same limitations as claim 1 and 7.
As to claims 15 and 20, see rejection of claims 1 and 7, except this is a claim to a non-transitory computer readable medium with the same limitations as claim 1 and 7.
8. Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sang, in view of Fang, as applied to claim above, further in view of US 2006/0193338 A1 by Zheng et al. (hereafter referred to as Zheng).
Regarding claim 2, Fang in view of Jang teaches the electronic device of Claim 1.
Fang in view of Jang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein to determine the QoS of the video call, the processor is further configured to: classify the quality of the video call based on at least one medium access control (MAC) layer feature and at least one internet protocol (IP) layer feature; and determine the QoS of the video call based on the classification.
In the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches wherein to determine the QoS of the video call, the processor is further configured to: classify the quality of the video call based on at least one medium access control (MAC) layer feature and at least one internet protocol (IP) layer feature; and determine the QoS of the video call based on the classification (see at least claims 12 and 14; “selection is based on a criterion including a quality of service (QoS) parameter associated with the transmission, quality of a channel supporting the selected carriers, or load of the carriers” and “the selection is performed at a medium Access Control (MAC) layer or a physical layer”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang with Jang in order to support various communication standards.
Regarding claim 3, Fang in view of Jang and Zheng teaches the electronic device of Claim 2. In addition, Zheng teaches wherein to classify the quality of the video call based on at least one MAC layer feature and the at least one IP layer feature, the processor is further configured to: estimate, based on the at least one MAC layer feature and the at least one IP layer feature, a maximum achievable rate (MAR) (see at least ¶ [0045]; and claim 12: "Dedicated channels are mainly designed to carry real-time application, but can also serve other type of applications under bad channel condition, for example. Shared channel are designed typically for non-real-time application. This channel can also serve real-time applications under good channel quality"; and "the selection is based on a criterion including a quality of service (QoS) parameter associated with the transmission, quality of a channel supporting the selected carriers, or load of the carriers").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang with Jang in order to support various communication standards.
Regarding claim 4, Fang in view of Jang and Zheng teaches the electronic device of Claim 3. In addition, Zheng teaches wherein to classify the quality of the video call based on the least one MAC layer feature and the at least one IP layer feature, the processor is further configured to: estimate, based on the at least one IP layer feature, a resource utilization (RU) rate; and classify the quality of the video call based on the RU and the MAR (see at least ¶ [0045]; and claims 11-12: "Dedicated channels are mainly designed to carry real-time application, but can also serve other type of applications under bad channel condition, for example. Shared channels are designed typically for non-real-time application. This channel can also serve real-time applications under good channel quality"; and “means for selecting one or more carriers among a plurality of carriers for transport of data over the multi-carrier system. wherein the selection is based on a criterion including a quality of service (QoS) parameter associated with the transmission, quality of a channel supporting the selected carriers, or load of the carriers.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fang with Jang in order to support various communication standards.
As to claims 9-11, see rejection of claims 2-4, except this is a claim to a method with the same limitations as claim 2-4.
As to claims 16 and 17, see rejection of claims 2-4, except this is a claim to a non-transitory computer readable medium with the same limitations as claim 2-4.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19 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.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights