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 Interpretation
The Examiner’s interpretation of independent claim 1, for the purpose of consideration on the merits, is as follows:
The claim discloses the step of a transceiver transmitting or receiving, prior to entering L2 (power saving, paragraph 3, line 1) Mode, a message comprising a parameter which indicates at least the minimum expected throughput setting for the transceiver once it begins the process of exiting the L2 mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 appears to be written as follows: “A method comprising: transmitting or receiving, by a transceiver and prior to entering an L2 Mode, a message comprising a parameter indicating at least a minimum expected throughput after a first L2 exit step from the L2 Mode.”
This language could be interpreted either as described in “Claim Interpretation” above, or in such a way that the transceiver exits L2 Mode without/before entering L2 mode. Based on this ambiguity, the claim appears to be indefinite, and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S C. 112(b) accordingly.
For the purpose of consideration on the merits, the claim will be interpreted as stated in “Claim Interpretation” above.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reina (US 2005/0271129), hereafter referred to as Reina’129 in view of Schoppmeier et al. (US 2011/0276826), hereafter referred to as Schoppmeier’826.
Referring to independent claim 1, Reina’129 teaches a method comprising: transmitting or receiving, by a transceiver (transmitter 22 and receiver 24, see figure 1 and paragraph 34, lines 2-3) and prior to entering an L2 mode, a message (initialization mode involves selecting a sub-group of tones selected to transmit transition sequence to signal transition back to L0 from L2, wherein tones are selected based on signal-to-noise ratio or other channel conditions, paragraph 38, lines 7-13).
Reina’129 does not appear to explicitly teach the message comprising a parameter indicating at least a minimum expected throughput after a first L2 exit step from the L2 mode.
However, Schoppmeier’826 teaches a message comprising a parameter indicating at least a minimum expected throughput after a first L2 exit step from the L2 mode (“Framing parameters for a DTU framer may for example comprise a number of Reed-Solomon codewords per DTU, a number of padding bytes per DTU or a framing type defining the DTU framing structure”, paragraph 26, lines 1-4; framing parameter change 40, see figure 4A and paragraph 75, lines 9-12; minimum rate for MSG_min and required bandwidth may be set, paragraph 143, lines 11-16; entering or leaving a low power mode, for example a L2 mode as defined in some xDSL standards, paragraph 21, lines 6-7).
Reina’129 and Schoppmeier’826 are analogous because they are drawn to the same inventive field of low power transmission of data.
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Reina’129 and Schoppmeier’826 before them, to modify the method of Reina’129 by incorporating the framing parameter change message specifying settings of required bandwidth and minimum rates.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate coordinating an online parameter change with other aspects of the communication system (paragraph 5, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Reina’129 and Schoppmeier’826 to bring about the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tzannes (US 2003/0210739) discloses SRA protocols used to enter and exit from low power modes in a very fast and seamless manner.
Quigley et al. (US 7,843,847) discloses wherein after the wait state is entered, then each channel is checked on a per user basis.
Kim et al. (WO 2012053841 A2) discloses wherein an MTC operating parameter may be received through a network entry process between the MTC terminal and the base station or a deregistration process transmitted and received to allow the terminal to initially enter an idle mode in a connected mode.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B ROCHE whose telephone number is (571)270-1721. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30 - 7.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at (571)272-4176. 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.
/J.B.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184