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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 3/2/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney et al., US 2021/0250157, (“Kenney”) in view of Lu et al., US 2016/0374114, (“Lu”) and Park, US 2012/0069746, (“Park”), newly cited.
Regarding claim 1, Kenney teaches “A device, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage (Fig. 1, AP 102; Fig. 11, processing circuitry 1106 and memory 1108), the processing circuitry configured to:
allocate an unlicensed national information infrastructure 4 (UNH14) channel to a first station device (STA), wherein the UNII4 channel follows a UNII4 channelization that has channels centered adjacent to a UNII3 frequency band (see paragraph no. 0056, “an enhanced NGV services packet system may facilitate a proposal to use the DSRC/ITS channel as a control channel and/or for basic safety messages and then use the Wi-Fi channels in UNII4, adjacent to the DSRC/ITS band to support other V2X and enhanced services”; see Fig. 3 which shows the UNII4 channels adjacent to the UNII3 channels; see Fig. 2 which shows the UNII4 channels 172, 174, 175, 176, 178; it appears that the AP 102 implicitly allocates the new channels in the UNII4 band to a user device (“station device”) since the AP transits PPDUs to the user device over the UNII4 channels, see Fig. 1 and Fig. 10; however, see below for an explicit teaching of channel allocation by an AP);
generate a physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) (Fig. 10, step 1002 and paragraph no. 0080); and
send the PPDU to the STA using the allocated UNII4 channel” (Fig. 10, steps 1008, 1010 and paragraph nos. 0079, 0083, 0084; the PPDU of Fig. 10 is sent to a user device such as user device 124 shown in Fig. 1 via the UNII4 channel(s)).
While Kenney appears to implicitly teach that the AP allocates the UNII4 channel to a user device, Lu explicitly teaches channel allocation by an AP to a user device, see paragraph nos. 0135 and 0139. In particular, paragraph no. 0135 discloses “To improve channel utilization, the embodiments of the present invention provide a method and an apparatus for indicating a channel resource, so that after an access point allocates a channel resource to all stations in a centralized manner according to the channel resource and types of stations in a same BSS” and paragraph no. 0139 discloses that a channel resource may be allocated by a channel bitmap indicating which channel(s) a station may use to communicate with the AP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney by incorporating the teachings of Lu to improve channel utilization, as suggested by Lu in paragraph no. 0135.
Regarding the newly added claim limitation “introduces a 5 MHz frequency gap between the UNII4 channel and an adjacent Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) band”of claim 1, Kenny teaches that the UNII4 channel is adjacent to the DSRC/ITS band, see paragraph no. 0056 and Fig. 3. However, Kenny does not teach that a 5 MHz frequency gap exists between the UNII4 channel and the ITS band.
Park teaches that a 5 MHz frequency gap 308 exists between the UNII2-extended band and a UNII-3 band, see Fig. 3 and paragraph no.0049.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney and Lu by incorporating the teachings of Park to reduce the channel interference between the UNII4 channel and the ITS band as is known in the art.
Regarding independent claims 10 and 19, these independent claims are corresponding computer readable medium and method claims of the apparatus claim 1 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to these independent claims.
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney, Lu, and Park as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of the NPL document entitled “USDOT Spectrum Sharing Analysis Plan: Effects of Unlicensed-National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices on Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC)” dated December 2017, Version 4.7, (“USDOT”).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Kenney and Lu do not teach but the USDOT teaches “wherein the UNII4 channelization may limit the use of 40, 80 and 160 MHz channels in UN114 channels” (see Fig. 1-3 on page 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney, Lu, and Park by incorporating the teachings of the USDOT to enable the use of 20 MHz channels in UNII4 channels as suggested by the USDOT on page 16.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kenney and Lu do not teach but the USDOT teaches “wherein the UNII4 channelization is separated from UNII3 frequency band by having 20 MHz channels” (see Fig. 1-4 on page 17). USDOT does not teach “defined with channel 172 centered at 5860 MHz and channel 176 centered at 5880MHz.” The USDOT teaches that at the 20 MHz channels, channels 169, 173, 177, and 181 are centered at certain frequencies, see Fig. 1-4 on page 17. However, the distinction is considered obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney, Lu, Park, and USDOT by defining channel 172 centered at 5860 MHz and channel 176 centered at 5880MHz since this specific channel definition is nothing more than the selection of optimum design parameters in formulating a new UNII4 channelization scheme and therefore, well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Kenney, Lu and the USDOT do not teach “wherein the UNII4 channelization introduces a frequency gap between UNII4 channels.” However, the USDOT teaches a frequency gap between channels 144 and 149, see Fig. 1-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney, Lu, Park, and USDOT by defining frequency gaps between UNII4 channels since this feature is nothing more than the selection of optimum design parameters in formulating a new UNII4 channelization scheme and therefore, well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the use of frequency gaps would reduce inter-channel interference between the adjacent channels separated by a frequency gap.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Kenney and Lu do not teach but USDOT teaches “wherein the UNI14 channel is selected from non overlapping channels” (see Fig. 1-4 which shows channels 169, 173, 177, and 181 do not overlap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney, Lu, Park, and USDOT by incorporating the additional teachings of USDOT to further reduce inter-channel interference between the adjacent, non-overlapping channels.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kenney and Lu do not teach but USDOT teaches “wherein the UNII4 channel has a frequency center selected to be between 5845 MHz and 5885 MHz” (see Fig. 1-4, channel 173 has a center frequency between 5845 and 5885 MHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney, Lu, Park, and USDOT by incorporating the additional teachings of USDOT since this feature is nothing more than the selection of optimum design parameters in formulating a new UNII4 channelization scheme and therefore, well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kenney and Lu do not teach but USDOT teaches “wherein the UNII4 channel is a 20 MHz channel selected from channel 169 having a 5845 MHz center frequency, channel 173 having a 5865 MHz center frequency, or channel 177 having a 5885 MHz center frequency” (see Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney, Lu, Park, and USDOT by incorporating the additional teachings of USDOT since this feature is nothing more than the selection of optimum design parameters in formulating a new UNII4 channelization scheme and therefore, well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Kenney and Lu do not teach but USDOT teaches “wherein the UNII4 channel is a 40 MHz channel selected from channel 167 having a 5835 MHz center frequency, followed by channel 175 having a 5875 MHz center frequency” (see Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney, Lu, Park, and USDOT by incorporating the additional teachings of USDOT since this feature is nothing more than the selection of optimum design parameters in formulating a new UNII4 channelization scheme and therefore, well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Kenney and Lu do not teach but USDOT teaches “wherein the UNII4 channel is a 80 MHz channel 171 having a 5855 MHz center frequency, or the UNII4 channel is a 160 MHz channel 163 having a 5815 MHz center frequency” (see Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Kenney, Lu, Park, and USDOT by incorporating the additional teachings of USDOT since this feature is nothing more than the selection of optimum design parameters in formulating a new UNII4 channelization scheme and therefore, well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414