DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 18 December 2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-25 and 27-32 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 7, 15, 25 and 27-28 are amended.
Claims 5 and 26 are canceled.
Claims 31-32 are new.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, 25 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 11-12 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al (“Proposed On Unused Bandwidth Utilizations), hereinafter Verma, in view of Park et al (US 2011/0317674 A1), hereinafter Park ‘674, and further in view of Lee et al (KR 10-2022-0093696), hereinafter Lee, where English Language of the convenient translation of (WO 2024/025340 A1), per MPEP 901.05.
Regarding Claim 1, Verma discloses a wireless device for wireless communication (see slide 5; a wireless device for wireless communication/STA), comprising:
a memory (see slide 5; a memory/STA contains a memory); and
one or more processors (see slide 5; one or more processors /STA contains one or more processors), coupled to the memory (see slide 5; coupled to the memory/STA contains memory), configured to:
perform packet detection on a primary channel using a first packet detector (see slide 5; perform/performs packet detection/CCA on a primary channel/(primary channel) using a first packet detector/transmitter, receive element of STA), the primary channel having a first bandwidth within an operation channel width for the wireless device (see slides 3 and 5; the primary channel/(primary channel) having a first bandwidth//(20 MHz) within an operation channel width/(300 MHz of remaining bandwidth) for the wireless device/STA);
perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel (see slides 7-8; perform/perform packet detection/CCA on a first non-primary channel/other channels), the first non-primary channel being within the operating channel width and not including the primary channel (see slides 3 and 7-8; the first non-primary channel/(other channels, where CCA completes successfully) being within the operating channel width/(300 MHz of remaining bandwidth, other channels in the operating bandwidth) and not including the primary channel/other channels, not the primary channel); and
transmit a packet on the first non-primary channel and one or more subchannels based on packet detection for the primary channel or packet detection for the first non-primary channel (see slides 3 and 5; transmit/transmits a packet on the first non-primary channel/(non-primary channel where CCA completes successfully) and one or more subchannels/(on the channels where CCA completes successfully of the 300 MHz remaining bandwidth) based on packet detection/(transmitter, receive element of STA) for the primary channel/(primary channel) or packet detection/(transmitter, receive element of STA) for the first non-primary channel/where CCA completes successfully).
Although Verma discloses perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel as set forth above,
Verma does not explicitly disclose perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel “using a second packet detector”.
However, Park ‘674 discloses a wireless device for wireless communication, comprising:
perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel using a second packet detector (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-20; perform packet/packet detection/detect on a first non-primary channel/(any one of the secondary channels 210) using a second packet detector/short-preamble detection 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel “using a second packet detector” as taught by Park ‘674 in the system of Verma to provide multichannel communication stations and methods that can detect transmissions of other wireless networks on secondary channels to help reduce the probability of collisions (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Park ‘674).
Although the combination of Verma and Park ‘674 discloses a wireless device for wireless communication as set forth above,
The combination of Verma and Park ‘674 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel, and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel”.
However, Lee discloses a wireless device for wireless communication, comprising:
wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 59-66; wherein the first non-primary channel/(secondary channel) is within a first bonded channel/(40 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that includes the primary channel/primary channel), and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 59-66; and wherein the first non-primary channel/(secondary) is within a second bonded channel/(80 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that is different/(the first bonded channel is 40 MHz and the second bonded channel is 80 MHz which is different) than the first bonded channel/(40 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that includes the primary channel/primary channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel, and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel” as taught by Lee in the combined system of Verma and Park ‘674 to provide a channel access mechanism in the WLAN (see page 1, paragraph 1 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 2, Verma discloses the wireless device, further comprising performing energy detection on one or more of the primary channel and the first non-primary channel (see slides 5 and 7-8; further comprising performing energy detection/(energy detection or (ED) on page 8 under Definition of Full CCA) on one or more of the primary channel/(primary channel) and the first non-primary channel/non-primary channel).
Regarding Claim 3, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the first non-primary channel is being within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see slide 9; wherein the first non-primary channel/(non-primary channel) is being within a first bonded channel/(bonded channel set) that includes the primary channel/primary channel).
Regarding Claim 4, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the packet on the first non-primary channel, are configured to transmit packets on multiple subchannels within the first non-primary channel (see slides 8-9; are configured to transmit/transmit packets/packets on multiple subchannels/(other channels in the bandwidth) within the first non-primary channel/non-primary channel).
Regarding Claim 6, Although Verma discloses perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel as set forth above,
Verma does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet detection or energy detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector”.
However, Park ‘674 discloses the wireless device,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-23; wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet/packet detection/detection on a second non-primary channel/(any one of the secondary channels 210) using a third packet detector/guard-interval detection 204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector” as taught by Park ‘674 in the system of Verma to provide multichannel communication stations and methods that can detect transmissions of other wireless networks on secondary channels to help reduce the probability of collisions (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Park ‘674).
Regarding Claim 8, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the wireless device is a mobile station (see slide 3; wherein the wireless device is a mobile station/STA).
Regarding Claim 11, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the wireless device is an access point (see slide 5; wherein the wireless device is an access point/an AP).
Regarding Claim 12, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit an indication of the first non-primary channel as a secondary primary channel (see slide 12; configured to transmit/transmit an indication/(short bursts) of the first non-primary channel as a secondary primary channel/when primary channel is busy utilize non-primary channel).
Regarding Claim 25, Verma discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device (see slide 5; a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device/AP), comprising:
performing packet detection on a primary channel using a first packet detector (see slide 5; perform/performs packet detection/CCA on a primary channel/(primary channel) using a first packet detector/transmitter, receive element of STA);
performing packet detection on a first non-primary channel (see slides 7-8; perform/perform packet detection/CCA on a first non-primary channel/other channels); and
transmitting a packet on the first non-primary channel based on packet detection for the primary channel (see slides 3 and 5; transmitting/transmits a packet on the first non-primary channel/(non-primary channel where CCA completes successfully) based on packet detection/(transmitter, receive element of STA) for the primary channel/primary channel).
Although Verma discloses perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel as set forth above,
Verma does not explicitly disclose perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel “using a second packet detector”.
However, Park ‘674 discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device, comprising:
performing packet detection on a first non-primary channel using a second packet detector (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-20; perform packet/packet detection/detect on a first non-primary channel/(any one of the secondary channels 210) using a second packet detector/short-preamble detection 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing packet detection on a first non-primary channel “using a second packet detector” as taught by Park ‘674 in the system of Verma to provide multichannel communication stations and methods that can detect transmissions of other wireless networks on secondary channels to help reduce the probability of collisions (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Park ‘674).
Although the combination of Verma and Park ‘674 discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma and Park ‘674 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel, and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel”.
However, Lee discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device, comprising:
wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 59-66; wherein the first non-primary channel/(secondary channel) is within a first bonded channel/(40 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that includes the primary channel/primary channel), and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 59-66; and wherein the first non-primary channel/(secondary) is within a second bonded channel/(80 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that is different/(the first bonded channel is 40 MHz and the second bonded channel is 80 MHz which is different) than the first bonded channel/(40 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that includes the primary channel/primary channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel, and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel” as taught by Lee in the combined system of Verma and Park ‘674 to provide a channel access mechanism in the WLAN (see page 1, paragraph 1 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 26, Verma discloses the method, wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see slide 9; wherein the first non-primary channel/(non-primary channel) is within a first bonded channel/(bonded channel set) that includes the primary channel/primary channel).
Claim(s) 7 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Park ‘674, and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Park et al (US 2020/0413465 A1), hereinafter Park ‘465.
Regarding Claim 7, Although the combination of Verma and Park ‘674 discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma and Park ‘674 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to negotiate a location of the first non-primary channel that the second packet detector monitors”.
However, Park ‘465 discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to negotiate a location of the first non-primary channel that the second packet detector monitors (see paragraphs 23-24 and 44-45; wherein the one or more processors are configured to negotiate/negotiated a location/location of the first non-primary channel/(secondary channel) that the second packet detector/transmitter monitors/monitors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to negotiate a location of the first non-primary channel that the second packet detector monitors” as taught by Park ‘465 in the combined system of Verma and Park ‘674 enabling the packet decoding capability on each 20 MHz channel concurrently within the operating bandwidth (see page 1, paragraph 15 of Park ‘465).
Regarding Claim 27, Although the combination of Verma and Park ‘674 discloses the method as set forth above,
The combination of Verma and Park ‘674 does not explicitly disclose “further comprising negotiating a location of the first non-primary channel that the second packet detector monitors”.
However, Park ‘465 discloses the method, further comprising negotiating a location of the first non-primary channel that the second packet detector monitors (see paragraphs 23-24 and 44-45; further comprising negotiating/negotiated a location/location of the first non-primary channel/(secondary channel) that the second packet detector/transmitter monitors/monitors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “further comprising negotiating a location of the first non-primary channel that the second packet detector monitors” as taught by Park ‘465 in the combined system of Verma and Park ‘674 enabling the packet decoding capability on each 20 MHz channel concurrently within the operating bandwidth (see page 1, paragraph 15 of Park ‘465).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Park ‘674, and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Sridhara et al (US 2010/0046482 A1), hereinafter Sridhara.
Regarding Claim 9, Although the combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels”.
However, Sridhara discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 45, 54, 64 and 67; wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive/(AP sends) scheduling information/(scheduling indicating the packet transmission) for scheduling/schedule one or more packet detectors/(signal detector 318) on one or more non-primary channels/secondary channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels” as taught by Sridhara in the combined system of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee to provide a method for scheduling packet transmissions in a multi-channel wireless communications system (see page 1, paragraph 6 of Sridhara).
Regarding Claim 13, Although the combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels”.
However, Sridhara discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 45, 54, 64 and 67; wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit/send scheduling information/(scheduling indicating the packet transmission) for scheduling/schedule one or more packet detectors/(signal detector 318) on one or more non-primary channels/secondary channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels” as taught by Sridhara in the combined system of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee to provide a method for scheduling packet transmissions in a multi-channel wireless communications system (see page 1, paragraph 6 of Sridhara).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Park ‘674, and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Khude et al (US 2020/0274686 A1), hereinafter Khude.
Regarding Claim 10, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform a request-to-send (RTS) procedure or a clear-to-send (CTS) procedure before transmitting the packet (see slides 5 and 7-8; configured to perform a request-to-send (RTS) procedure or a clear-to-send (CTS) procedure before transmitting the packet/the STA performs CCA and then receives a CTS where CCA completes successfully).
Although the combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform a request-to-send (RTS) procedure or a clear-to-send (CTS) procedure before transmitting the packet or to wait for a triggering frame before transmitting the packet”.
However, Khude discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform a request-to-send (RTS) procedure or a clear-to-send (CTS) procedure before transmitting the packet (see Figure 8B and paragraphs 11 and 80; wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform a request-to-send (RTS) procedure/(request-to-send (RTS)) or a clear-to-send (CTS) procedure/(clear-to-send (CTS) before/(prior to) transmitting/transmission the packet/packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform a request-to-send (RTS) procedure or a clear-to-send (CTS) procedure before transmitting the packet” as taught by Khude in the combined system of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee to provide improvements in managing communications among devices in a network (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Khude).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Park ‘674, and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Sridhara, and further in view of Akoum et al (US 2020/0059914A1), hereinafter Akoum.
Regarding Claim 14, Although the combination of Verma, Park ‘674, Lee and Sridhara discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Sridhara does not explicitly disclose “wherein the scheduling information is based at least in part on one or more of a traffic type, a battery level, or traffic conditions”.
However, Akoum discloses the wireless device, wherein the scheduling information is based at least in part on one or more of a traffic type, a battery level, or traffic conditions (see paragraph 38; wherein the scheduling information/(scheduling request) is based at least in part on one or more of a traffic type/traffic type).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the scheduling information is based at least in part on one or more of a traffic type, a battery level, or traffic conditions” as taught by Akoum in the combined system of Verma, Park ‘674, Lee and Sridhara to transmit information reliably to their intended receivers (See paragraph 39, lines 28-29 of Akoum).
Claim(s) 15, 20, 22-23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Seok et al (US 2020/0288439 A1), hereinafter Seok, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 15, Verma discloses a wireless device for wireless communication (see slide 5; a wireless device for wireless communication/AP), comprising:
one or more memories (see slide 5; one or more memories/AP contains a memory); and
one or more processors (see slide 5; one or more processors/AP contains one or more processors), coupled to the one or more memories (see slide 5; coupled to the one or more memories/AP contains memory), configured to:
perform packet detection on a primary channel using a first packet detector (see slide 5; perform/performs packet detection/CCA on a primary channel/(primary channel) using a first packet detector/transmitter, receive element of STA);
receive a packet on a first non-primary channel in response to no packet detection on the primary channel (see slide 5; receive/transmit a packet/packet on a first non-primary channel/(other channel) in response to no packet detection on the primary channel/primary channel is BUSY).
Although Verma discloses a wireless device for wireless communication as set forth above,
Verma does not explicitly disclose “perform an action in response to receiving the packet on the first non-primary channel”.
However, Seok discloses a wireless device for wireless communication, comprising:
perform an action in response to receiving the packet on the first non-primary channel (see paragraphs 84-88; perform an action/(update its NAV) in response to receiving/receives the packet/PPDU on the first non-primary channel/sub-channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “perform an action in response to receiving the packet on the first non-primary channel” as taught by Seok in the system of Verma to provide a mechanism to efficiently use a channel (e.g., an 80 or 160 MHz channel) where a primary service is operating (see page 1, paragraph 12 of Seok).
Although the combination of Verma and Seok discloses a wireless device for wireless communication as set forth above,
The combination of Verma and Seok does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel, and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel”.
However, Lee discloses a wireless device for wireless communication, comprising:
the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 59-66; wherein the first non-primary channel/(secondary channel) is within a first bonded channel/(40 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that includes the primary channel/primary channel), and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 59-66; and wherein the first non-primary channel/(secondary) is within a second bonded channel/(80 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that is different/(the first bonded channel is 40 MHz and the second bonded channel is 80 MHz which is different) than the first bonded channel/(40 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that includes the primary channel/primary channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel, and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel” as taught by Lee in the combined system of Verma and Seok to provide a channel access mechanism in the WLAN (see page 1, paragraph 1 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 20, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the wireless device is mobile station (see slide 3; wherein the wireless device is a mobile station/STA).
Regarding Claim 22, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the wireless device is an access point (see slide 5; wherein the wireless device is an access point/an AP).
Regarding Claim 23, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit an indication of the first non-primary channel as a primary secondary channel (see slide 12; configured to transmit/transmit an indication/(short bursts) of the first non-primary channel as a secondary primary channel/when primary channel is busy utilize non-primary channel).
Regarding Claim 28, Verma discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device, comprising:
performing packet detection on a primary channel using a first packet detector (see slide 5; performing/performs packet detection/CCA on a primary channel/(primary channel) using a first packet detector/transmitter, receive element of STA);
receiving a packet on a first non-primary channel in response to no packet detection on the primary channel (see slide 5; receiving/transmit a packet/packet on a first non-primary channel/(other channel) in response to no packet detection on the primary channel/primary channel is BUSY).
Although Verma discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device as set forth above,
Verma does not explicitly disclose “performing an action in response to receiving the packet on the first non-primary channel”.
However, Seok discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device, comprising:
performing an action in response to receiving the packet on the first non-primary channel (see paragraphs 84-88; performing an action/(update its NAV) in response to receiving/receives the packet/PPDU on the first non-primary channel/sub-channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “performing an action in response to receiving the packet on the first non-primary channel” as taught by Seok in the system of Verma to provide a mechanism to efficiently use a channel (e.g., an 80 or 160 MHz channel) where a primary service is operating (see page 1, paragraph 12 of Seok).
Although the combination of Verma and Seok discloses a method of wireless communication by a wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma and Seok does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel, and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel”.
However, Lee discloses a method of wireless communication by a wireless device, comprising:
the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 59-66; wherein the first non-primary channel/(secondary channel) is within a first bonded channel/(40 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that includes the primary channel/primary channel), and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 59-66; and wherein the first non-primary channel/(secondary) is within a second bonded channel/(80 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that is different/(the first bonded channel is 40 MHz and the second bonded channel is 80 MHz which is different) than the first bonded channel/(40 MHz bonded channel as shown in Figure 5) that includes the primary channel/primary channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “the first non-primary channel is within a first bonded channel that includes the primary channel, and wherein the first non-primary channel is within a second bonded channel that is different than the first bonded channel that includes the primary channel” as taught by Lee in the combined system of Verma and Seok to provide a channel access mechanism in the WLAN (see page 1, paragraph 1 of Lee).
Claim(s) 16-17, 19 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Seok, and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Park ‘674.
Regarding Claim 16, Verma discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet detection on the first non-primary channel (see slides 7-8; configured to perform/perform packet detection/CCA on a first non-primary channel/other channels).
Although the combination of Verma, Seok and Lee discloses perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Seok and Lee does not explicitly disclose perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel “using a second packet detector”.
However, Park ‘674 discloses a wireless device for wireless communication, comprising:
perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel using a second packet detector (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-20; perform packet/packet detection/detect on a first non-primary channel/(any one of the secondary channels 210) using a second packet detector/short-preamble detection 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel “using a second packet detector” as taught by Park ‘674 in the combined system of Verma, Seok and Lee to provide multichannel communication stations and methods that can detect transmissions of other wireless networks on secondary channels to help reduce the probability of collisions (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Park ‘674).
Regarding Claim 17, Although the combination of Verma, Seok and Lee discloses perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Seok and Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector”.
However, Park ‘674 discloses a wireless device for wireless communication, comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-23; wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet/packet detection/detection on a second non-primary channel/(any one of the secondary channels 210) using a third packet detector/guard-interval detection 204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform packet detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector” as taught by Park ‘674 in the combined system of Verma, Seok and Lee to provide multichannel communication stations and methods that can detect transmissions of other wireless networks on secondary channels to help reduce the probability of collisions (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Park ‘674).
Regarding Claim 19, Although the combination of Verma, Seok and Lee discloses perform packet detection on a first non-primary channel as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Seok and Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to transmit feedback for the packet on the first non-primary channel”.
However, Park ‘674 discloses a wireless device for wireless communication, comprising:
wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to transmit feedback for the packet on the first non-primary channel (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-23; wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to transmit feedback/(ACK packet 212) for the packet/packet on the first non-primary channel/any one of the secondary channels 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to transmit feedback for the packet on the first non-primary channel” as taught by Park ‘674 in the combined system of Verma, Seok and Lee to provide multichannel communication stations and methods that can detect transmissions of other wireless networks on secondary channels to help reduce the probability of collisions (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Park ‘674).
Regarding Claim 29, Verma discloses the method, further comprising performing packet detection on the first non-primary channel (see slides 7-8; perform/perform packet detection/CCA on a first non-primary channel/other channels).
Although the combination of Verma, Seok and Lee discloses perform packet detection on the first non-primary channel as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Seok and Lee does not explicitly disclose perform packet detection on the first non-primary channel “using a second packet detector”.
However, Park ‘674 discloses the method, further comprising performing packet detection on a first non-primary channel using a second packet detector (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-15; performing packet/packet detection/detect on a first non-primary channel/(any one of the secondary channels 210) using a second packet detector/short-preamble detection 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing packet detection on a first non-primary channel “using a second packet detector” as taught by Park ‘674 in the combined system of Verma, Seok and Lee to provide multichannel communication stations and methods that can detect transmissions of other wireless networks on secondary channels to help reduce the probability of collisions (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Park ‘674).
Regarding Claim 30, Although the combination of Verma, Seok and Lee discloses perform packet detection on the first non-primary channel as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Seok and Lee does not explicitly disclose “further comprising performing packet detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector”.
However, Park ‘674 discloses the method, further comprising performing packet detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-23; further comprising performing packet/packet detection/detection on a second non-primary channel/(any one of the secondary channels 210) using a third packet detector/guard-interval detection 204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “further comprising performing packet detection on a second non-primary channel using a third packet detector” as taught by Park ‘674 in the combined system of Verma, Seok and Lee to provide multichannel communication stations and methods that can detect transmissions of other wireless networks on secondary channels to help reduce the probability of collisions (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Park ‘674).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Seok and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Mueck et al (US 2021/0385865 A1), hereinafter Mueck.
Regarding Claim 18, Although the combination of Verma, Seok and Lee discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Seok and Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to update virtual carrier sensing information”.
However, Mueck discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to update virtual carrier sensing information (see paragraph 485; wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to update/update virtual carrier sensing information/network allocation vector (NAV)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to update virtual carrier sensing information” as taught by Mueck in the combined system of Verma, Seok and Lee to improve spectral efficiency (see paragraph 69 of Mueck).
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Seok and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Park ‘674, and further in view of Sridhara.
Regarding Claim 21, Although the combination of Verma, Seok, Lee and Park ‘674 discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Seok, Lee and Park ‘674 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels”.
However, Sridhara discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 45, 54, 64 and 67; wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive/(AP sends) scheduling information/(scheduling indicating the packet transmission) for scheduling/schedule one or more packet detectors/(signal detector 318) on one or more non-primary channels/secondary channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels” as taught by Sridhara in the combined system of Verma, Seok, Lee and Park ‘674 to provide a method for scheduling packet transmissions in a multi-channel wireless communications system (see page 1, paragraph 6 of Sridhara).
Regarding Claim 24, Although the combination of Verma, Seok, Lee and Park ‘674 discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Seok, Lee and Park ‘674 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels”.
However, Sridhara discloses the wireless device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 45, 54, 64 and 67; wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit/send scheduling information/(scheduling indicating the packet transmission) for scheduling/schedule one or more packet detectors/(signal detector 318) on one or more non-primary channels/secondary channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive scheduling information for scheduling one or more packet detectors on one or more non-primary channels” as taught by Sridhara in the combined system of Verma, Seok, Lee and Park ‘674 to provide a method for scheduling packet transmissions in a multi-channel wireless communications system (see page 1, paragraph 6 of Sridhara).
Claim(s) 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Park ‘674 and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Li et al (CN 202010998503.8), hereinafter Li, where English Language of the convenient translation of (US 2023/0232452 A1), per MPEP 901.05.
Regarding Claim 31, Although the combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee discloses the wireless device as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the packet detection on the primary channel is performed according to a first energy detection threshold, and wherein the packet detection on the first non-primary channel is performed according to a second energy detection threshold lower than the first energy detection threshold”.
However, Li discloses the wireless device, wherein the packet detection on the primary channel is performed according to a first energy detection threshold (see paragraphs 57, 115 and 135; wherein the packet detection/(energy detection) on the primary channel/(primary channel) is performed according to a first energy detection threshold/-62 dBm), and wherein the packet detection on the first non-primary channel is performed according to a second energy detection threshold lower than the first energy detection threshold (see paragraphs 60 and 115; and wherein the packet detection on the first non-primary channel/(temporary primary channel which is a second channel) is performed according to a second energy detection threshold/(-82 dBm) lower/reduced than the first energy detection threshold/-62 dBm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the packet detection on the primary channel is performed according to a first energy detection threshold, and wherein the packet detection on the first non-primary channel is performed according to a second energy detection threshold lower than the first energy detection threshold” as taught by Li in the combined system of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee so that when a primary channel is busy, a procedure of switching from the primary channel to a subordinate channel/a secondary channel for channel access can be optimized (see page 1, paragraph 6 of Li).
Regarding Claim 32, Although the combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee discloses the method as set forth above,
The combination of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the packet detection on the primary channel is performed according to a first energy detection threshold, and wherein the packet detection on the first non-primary channel is performed according to a second energy detection threshold lower than the first energy detection threshold”.
However, Li discloses the method, wherein the packet detection on the primary channel is performed according to a first energy detection threshold (see paragraphs 57, 115 and 135; wherein the packet detection/(energy detection) on the primary channel/(primary channel) is performed according to a first energy detection threshold/-62 dBm), and wherein the packet detection on the first non-primary channel is performed according to a second energy detection threshold lower than the first energy detection threshold (see paragraphs 60 and 115; and wherein the packet detection on the first non-primary channel/(temporary primary channel which is a second channel) is performed according to a second energy detection threshold/(-82 dBm) lower/reduced than the first energy detection threshold/-62 dBm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the packet detection on the primary channel is performed according to a first energy detection threshold, and wherein the packet detection on the first non-primary channel is performed according to a second energy detection threshold lower than the first energy detection threshold” as taught by Li in the combined system of Verma, Park ‘674 and Lee so that when a primary channel is busy, a procedure of switching from the primary channel to a subordinate channel/a secondary channel for channel access can be optimized (see page 1, paragraph 6 of Li).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al (US 2013/0308580 A1) discloses Multi-channel communication station for communicating a multi-channel ppdu and methods of reducing collisions on secondary channels in multi-channel wireless networks. Specifically, see Figure 2 and paragraphs 15-45.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATRESA A McCALLUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-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, IAN N MOORE can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/L.A.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2469 /Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469