DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 15 was canceled by preliminary amendment.
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
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant-supplied non-patent literature entitled “Towards Joint Learning of Optimal MAC Signaling and Wireless Channel Access” (Valcarce et al.).
As to Claim 1, Valcarce et al. anticipate a method comprising:
training a machine learning model to learn a communication protocol for a communication medium by assigning a function to control plane actions in a set of control plane actions, wherein the communication protocol defines control-plane messages to be transmitted via the communication medium and a user-plane policy (Valcarce et al. – Pages 2 and 3, “Problem Definition” definitions for “Channel access scheme” and “MAC protocol”; along with section “B. Target MAC signaling”, first paragraph);
wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify, in the set of control plane actions, a control plane action to be performed during a current transmission time interval by a protocol agent at a network node (Valcarce et al. – Page 5, column 2, section 4 “Uplink signaling action space”).
As to Claim 2, Valcarce et al. anticipate the method according to claim 1,
wherein the communication protocol is a medium access control, MAC, protocol and the protocol agent is a MAC agent (Valcarce et al. – Page 1 “Introduction” {MAC protocol} and Page 3 “Target MAC signaling” {MAC learner”}).
As to Claim 3, Valcarce et al. anticipate the method according to claim 1,
wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify the control plane action on the basis of at least on an observation vector obtained for a current transmission time interval (Valcarce et al. – Page 3, column 2, “In the above definitions … such as throughput, latency, etc.”; along with the definitions).
As to Claim 4, Valcarce et al. anticipate the method according to claim 1,
wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify the control plane action on the basis of one or more control plane messages received from another MAC agent at another network node (Valcarce et al. – Page 3, column 2, “The BS is an expert … such as throughput, latency, etc.”).
As to Claim 9, Valcarce et al. anticipate the method according to claim 1,
wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify in a set of a user plane actions a next user plane action to be performed by the agent on a physical layer on the basis at least of the observation vector (Valcarce et al. – Page 3, column 2, “In the above definitions … such as throughput, latency, etc.”; along with the definitions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10 and 11 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.
Claims 12-14 are allowed.
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, John A Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights