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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (2023/0388978) in view of Chitrakar et al. (2021/0227547), hereinafter Chitrakar and Huang et al (2023/0007571).
Re. Claim 1, Liu teaches an access point for an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") wireless local area network, comprising: an interface circuit configured to communicate with an client device (¶0005 - An electronic apparatus for wireless communications, the electronic apparatus comprising processing circuitry) , and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with an access point (¶0037 - The electronic apparatus 300 may work as a base station itself, and may also include external devices such as a memory… The memory may be used to store programs and related data information that the base station needs to execute in order to implement various functions), which performs a method comprising receiving a packet or a frame associated with the client device (¶0005 - Receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission); and determining whether the client device has multi-band capability based at least in part on information included in the packet or the frame (¶0005 - receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission), and information is stored in memory in the access point (¶0037 - The electronic apparatus 300 may work as a base station itself, and may also include external devices such as a memory… The memory may be used to store programs and related data information that the base station needs to execute in order to implement various functions).
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on an operating class of the client device.
However, Chitrakar explicitly teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on an operating class of the client device (Fig. 3 & ¶0052 - An element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes… [an] Operating Class, ¶0056 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band, & ¶0058 - The AP 504 broadcasts a Beacon frame 508 on the 5 GHz band, through which STA 502, currently operating on the 5 GHz band, discovers the multi-band capability of the AP, for example by checking the included multi-band elements 300, and decides to get authenticated on all the frequency bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) on which the AP 504 operates and also decides the frequencies to be associated on).
Yet, the combination of Liu and Chitrakar does not expressly teach wherein the information stored in memory comprising one or more predefined channels in one or more predefined bands of frequencies specified by the operating class.
However, Huang explicitly teaches wherein the information stored in memory comprising one or more predefined channels in one or more predefined bands of frequencies specified by the operating class (¶0289 - the reserved field in the Control field may include indication information, for example, operating class present (OCP), used to indicate whether the EHT operation element carries an Operating Class field, or understandably, used to indicate whether the two channels are located in different frequency bands. For example, when OCP=1, it indicates that the EHT operation element carries the Operating Class field, that is, the two channels are located in different frequency bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Chitrakar and Huang to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as Chitrakar provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by operating class (Chitrakar ¶0052) and Huang teaches where there are one or more channels within a band specified by the operating class (Huang, ¶0289). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 3 and 21, Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang teach Claims 1 and 18.
Yet, Liu and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the determining that the electronic device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on bands of frequencies associated with the operating class.
However, Chitrakar explicitly teaches wherein the determining that the electronic device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on bands of frequencies associated with the operating class (¶0055 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Chitrakar to the teaching of Liu and Huang. The motivation for such would be as Chitrakar provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by the bands associated with the operating class (Chitrakar ¶0055). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 4, Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang teach Claim 1.
Yet, Liu and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the packet or the frame comprises an association request frame, and the association request frame comprises an operating classes information element that specifies the operating class.
However, Chitrakar explicitly teaches wherein the packet or the frame comprises an association request frame, and the association request frame comprises an operating classes information element that specifies the operating class (Fig. 11 & ¶0079 - An element 1100 used to authenticate and/or associate a multi-band STA with a multi-band AP. By way of example, the element 110 may be the Multi-band element 300 and includes… Operating Class).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Chitrakar to the teaching of Liu and Huang. The motivation for such would be as Chitrakar provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by a request frame which contains the operating class (Chitrakar ¶0079). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 22, Liu, Chitrakar and Huang teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is not based on a media access control (MAC) address of the client device that is included in the packet or the frame (¶0005 - receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission. Examiner interprets, due to the presence of “NOT” that the above stated citation, which does not disclose that the multi-band capability is derived from the MAC address of a client, is sufficient for the means of rejection).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Chitrakar, Huang, and Kannan et al. (2022/0182909), hereinafter Kannan.
Re. Claim 6, Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Liu teaches determining that the electronic device has the multi-band capability (¶0005 - Receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission).
Yet, the combination of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the determination is based at least in part on a predefined or predetermined band capability of the model.
However, Kannan explicitly teaches wherein the determination is based at least in part on a predefined or predetermined band capability of the model (¶0044 - The profile information may include:... a type or model of electronic device 112-1. Additionally, Examiner interprets that the profile information including the model type of the device to be predetermined, as the model type of the device is non-transmutable and would be provided to the device before this request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kannan to the teaching of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang. The motivation for such would be as Kannan provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by the predetermined model of the device (Kannan ¶0044). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 7, Liu, Chitrakar, Huang and Kannan teach Claim 5.
Yet, the combination of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the packet or the frame comprises an association request frame and the association request frame comprises second information specifying the model.
However, Kannan explicitly teaches wherein the packet or the frame comprises an association request frame (¶0031 - This wireless communication can comprise transmitting advertisements on wireless channels to enable access points 110 and/or electronic devices 112 to make initial contact or detect each other, followed by exchanging subsequent data/management frames (such as association requests and responses) to establish a connection), and the association request frame comprises second information specifying the model (¶0044 - The profile information may include:... a type or model of electronic device 112-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kannan to the teaching of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang. The motivation for such would be as Kannan provides that provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by a request frame which contains the model of the device (Kannan ¶0031, ¶0044). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Chitrakar, Huang and Calcev, George (2016/0073316), hereinafter Calcev.
Re. Claim 9, Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Liu teaches determining that the electronic device has the multi-band capability (¶0005 - Receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission).
Yet, the combination of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the capacity is based at least in part on a vendor of the electronic device.
However, Calcev explicitly teaches wherein the capacity is based at least in part on a vendor of the electronic device (¶0034 - The vendor specific element may include an element ID, a length, an organization identifier, and a vendor-specific content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Calcev to the teaching of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang. The motivation for such would be as Calcev teaches that vendor specific information may include a vendor identifier (Calcev ¶0034). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re Claim 12, Liu, Chitrakar, Huang, and Calcev teach Claim 9
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach a packet or the frame comprises an association request frame and wherein the association request frame comprises an organizationally unique identifier information element specifying the vendor.
However, Chitrakar explicitly teaches a packet or the frame comprises an association request frame (¶0059 - The STA 502 then transmits an Association Request frame 530 to the AP 504 on the 5 GHz band requesting the AP 504 to associate the STA on the 5 GHz band as well as the 2.4 GHz and the 6 GHz bands).
Yet, the combination of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the association request frame comprises an organizationally unique identifier information element specifying the vendor.
However, Calcev explicitly teaches wherein the association request frame comprises an organizationally unique identifier information element specifying the vendor (¶0034 - The vendor specific element may include an element ID, a length, an organization identifier, and a vendor-specific content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Chitrakar and Calcev to the teaching of Liu, and Huang. The motivation for such would be as Chitrakar provides a framework for determining multi-band capabilities for vendor specific information (Chitrakar ¶0059) and Calcev teaches that vendor specific information may include a vendor identifier (Calcev ¶0034). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re Claims 14, Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang teach Claims 1, 15, and 18.
Yet, the combination of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang does not teach expressly teach wherein the operations comprise selectively providing a transition recommendation addressed to the electronic device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability.
However, Calcev explicitly teaches wherein the operations comprise selectively providing a transition recommendation addressed to the electronic device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability (¶0039 - The AP may request that a STA transition to a different BSS… The BSS transition management request frame includes… an MBO cellular data link request… and an MBO reason code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Calcev to the teaching of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang. The motivation for such would be as Calcev teaches where a transition recommendation is sent to the device based on the capability determined (Calcev ¶0039). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kannan.
Re. Claim 23, Liu teaches a method for operating an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") wireless local area network, comprising: receiving, at an access point of the wireless local area network, a packet or a frame associated with a client device that is associated with the access point (¶0005 - Receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission); transmitting, by an interface circuit included within the access point, information included within the packet or frame to a computer (¶0037 -The transceiver may include one or more communication interfaces to support communication with different devices (e.g., user equipment, other base stations, etc.), and the implementation form of the transceiver is not specifically limited here); determining, by the computer (¶0119 - The user equipment may be implemented as a mobile terminal (such as a smart phone, a tablet personal computer (PC), a notebook PC, a portable game terminal, a portable/dongle type mobile router, and a digital camera) or a vehicle-mounted terminal (such as an automobile navigation device)), whether the client device has multi-band capability, wherein the determination is based at least in part on information other than a media access control (MAC) address of the client device that is included in the packet or the frame (¶0005 - receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission); receiving, by the interface circuit, an indication as to whether the client device has multi- band capability (¶0005 - receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission);
However, Liu does not expressly teach selectively providing, by the access point, a transition recommendation addressed to the client device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability, wherein the transition recommendation includes instructions for the client device to switch from one frequency band to another frequency band.
Yet, Kannan explicitly teaches selectively providing, by the access point, a transition recommendation addressed to the client device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability, wherein the transition recommendation includes instructions for the client device to switch from one frequency band to another frequency band (¶0036 - the transition recommendation may recommend that an associated electronic device (such as electronic device 112-1) transition to another one of access point 110 in WLAN 114 or to another channel (such as in a different frequency band, e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, 60 GHz or another band of frequencies) with access point 110-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kannan to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as Kannan provides a means for switching between frequency bands via an access point (Kannan ¶0036). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 24, Liu and Kannan teach Claim 23.
Liu further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on prior determinations made by the access point with respect to whether the client device had the multi-band capability (¶0037 - The electronic apparatus 300 may work as a base station itself, and may also include external devices such as a memory… The memory may be used to store programs and related data information that the base station needs to execute in order to implement various functions).
Re. Claim 25, Liu and Kannan teach Claim 23.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the transition recommendation may also include instructions for the client device to switch from one channel within a frequency band to another channel within the same frequency band.
Yet, Kannan expressly teaches wherein the transition recommendation may also include instructions for the client device to switch from one channel within a frequency band to another channel within the same frequency band (¶0036 - the transition recommendation may recommend that an associated electronic device (such as electronic device 112-1) transition to another one of access point 110 in WLAN 114 or to another channel (such as in a different frequency band, e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, 60 GHz or another band of frequencies) with access point 110-3. The inclusion of “such as” in this citation leads Examiner to interpret that the transition to another channel does not require transitioning between frequency bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kannan to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as Kannan provides a means for switching between frequency bands via an access point (Kannan ¶0036). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kannan and Chitrakar.
Re. Claim 26, Liu and Kannan teach Claim 23.
Yet, the combination of Liu and Kannan does not expressly teach wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on an operating class of the client device.
However, Chitrakar explicitly teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on an operating class of the client device (Fig. 3 & ¶0052 - An element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes… [an] Operating Class, ¶0056 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band, & ¶0058 - The AP 504 broadcasts a Beacon frame 508 on the 5 GHz band, through which STA 502, currently operating on the 5 GHz band, discovers the multi-band capability of the AP, for example by checking the included multi-band elements 300, and decides to get authenticated on all the frequency bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) on which the AP 504 operates and also decides the frequencies to be associated on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Chitrakar to the teaching of Liu and Kannan. The motivation for such would be as Chitrakar provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by operating class (Chitrakar ¶0052). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Chitrakar, Huang and Kannan.
Re. Claim 27, Liu teaches a method of operating an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") wireless local area network, comprising: by an access point: receiving a packet or a frame associated with a client device that is associated with the access point (¶0005 - Receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission); determining whether the client device has the multi-band capability based at least in part on information that is included in the packet or the frame (¶0005 - receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission).
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on an operating class of the client device.
However, Chitrakar explicitly teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on an operating class of the client device (Fig. 3 & ¶0052 - An element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes… [an] Operating Class, ¶0056 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band, & ¶0058 - The AP 504 broadcasts a Beacon frame 508 on the 5 GHz band, through which STA 502, currently operating on the 5 GHz band, discovers the multi-band capability of the AP, for example by checking the included multi-band elements 300, and decides to get authenticated on all the frequency bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) on which the AP 504 operates and also decides the frequencies to be associated on).
Yet, the combination of Liu and Chitrakar does not expressly teach wherein the information stored in memory comprising one or more predefined channels in one or more predefined bands of frequencies specified by the operating class.
However, Huang explicitly teaches wherein the information stored in memory comprising one or more predefined channels in one or more predefined bands of frequencies specified by the operating class (¶0289 - the reserved field in the Control field may include indication information, for example, operating class present (OCP), used to indicate whether the EHT operation element carries an Operating Class field, or understandably, used to indicate whether the two channels are located in different frequency bands. For example, when OCP=1, it indicates that the EHT operation element carries the Operating Class field, that is, the two channels are located in different frequency bands).
However, the combination of Liu, Chitrakar, and Huang does not expressly teach selectively providing, by the access point, a transition recommendation addressed to the client device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability, wherein the transition recommendation includes instructions for the client device to switch from one frequency band to another frequency band.
Yet, Kannan explicitly teaches selectively providing, by the access point, a transition recommendation addressed to the client device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability, wherein the transition recommendation includes instructions for the client device to switch from one frequency band to another frequency band (¶0036 - the transition recommendation may recommend that an associated electronic device (such as electronic device 112-1) transition to another one of access point 110 in WLAN 114 or to another channel (such as in a different frequency band, e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, 60 GHz or another band of frequencies) with access point 110-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Chitrakar and Huang to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as Chitrakar provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by operating class (Chitrakar ¶0052), Huang teaches where there are one or more channels within a band specified by the operating class (Huang, ¶0289), and Kannan provides a means for switching between frequency bands via an access point (Kannan ¶0036). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 28, Liu, Chitrakar, Huang, and Kannan teach Claim 27.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on prior determinations made by the access point with respect to whether the client device had the multi-band capability (¶0037 - The electronic apparatus 300 may work as a base station itself, and may also include external devices such as a memory… The memory may be used to store programs and related data information that the base station needs to execute in order to implement various functions).
Re. Claim 29, Liu, Chitrakar, Huang, and Kannan teach Claim 27.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is not based on a media access control (MAC) address of the client device that is included in the packet or the frame (¶0005 - receive, from user equipment, report information about the ability of the user equipment to support multi-frequency domain resource transmission and multi-beam transmission. Examiner interprets, due to the presence of “NOT” that the above stated citation, which does not disclose that the multi-band capability is derived from the MAC address of a client, is sufficient for the means of rejection).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14, 22-29 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant provides five specific arguments that will be addressed in order of presentation. First, Applicant argues against the citation provided in ¶0005 of Liu as “multi-frequency transmission” is not equivalent to “multi-band capability”. To this Examiner respectfully disagrees, and argues that this language has been in place since the original non-final rejection provided on 03/13/2025. Applicant has the right to bring any argument at any time, however, at this time in prosecution, several actions have been filed by both parties at this point in time based on the foundation that Liu discloses a means of disclosing multi-beam capability. Further still, Examiner finds that a disclosure of “multi-frequency” can be interpreted as functionally similar to “multi-band” as in the field of telecommunication, a band operates as a grouping of frequencies or bandwidth’s. As such, based on this interpretation, Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive.
Second, Applicant argues that there would be no reason to modify Liu via Chitrakar should Liu disclose multi-band capability. To this Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argument that modification would not be needed does not de facto prove that the rejection should be withdrawn. Chitrakar is provided for greater clarity regarding the process as all elements of the claimed language must be provided during the rejection in order to be valid. Relying on the assumption that either 1) a reference should have certain information by merit of its topic or 2) another reference should not be included based on what another reference may or may not be able to show leaves a gap in the prosecution that would render the rejection moot. While Liu still provides multi-band capability reporting, it does not expressly disclose the material that is cured by Chitrakar and as such, Examiner finds the argument that Liu should disclose these things to be not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues that by prospect of the new amendment regarding the invention being of an IEEE wireless local area network, Liu is in fact no longer analogous art. Examiner respectfully disagrees on two fronts regarding this argument. First, Liu has been provided in three previous actions during the course of prosecution and Applicant has never broached this argument until now, which, as previously stated, does not forfeit Applicant’s right to make such an argument, but does raise a question regarding the sudden change in understanding between the parties. Second, Examiner finds that Applicant is narrowly reading on the cited Section 2131.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. While Liu does handle a non-terrestrial system, the fact of the matter is that the reference still pertains well within the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention, though addressing a different problem. Examiner did not provide a reference in a separate field, such as that of medical instruments, microbiology or otherwise for example, the provided reference stays within similar CPC types to that of the claimed invention. As such, since Liu is still disclosing an invention within the field of telecommunication, the reference satisfies the first prong of the 2131.01 requirement and is considered an analogous art. Additionally, for clarity, the addition of the IEEE wireless local area network language is both found within the preamble, which is provided no patentable weight, and provided as an exemplary embodiment in a clause starting with “for”, and as such, is not considered when determining whether the reference is analogous.
Fourth, Applicant argues against Chitrakar not disclosing determining whether a client device has multi-band capability based on an operating class of the client device. Examiner once again would like to make clear for the record that Chitrakar was provided in a previous final action prior to the RCE, and this argument has not been provided previously. As previously discussed, Chitrakar is not provided for its disclosure regarding its structures or method but rather as a means to cure the deficiency of disclosure provided by Liu. Further still, Applicant argues against an element of Chitrakar not provided by the rejection by arguing against Fig. 4, structure 400. As such, Examiner maintains that Chitrakar is provided as a means to show that the multi-band reporting of Liu can be performed based on an operating class of a device.
Finally, Applicant argues that it appears to not be possible to modify the system of Liu based on the other references provided, however, Examiner reminds Applicant that this is not inherently the point of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejection does not concern itself with the possibility of the combination, but rather the obviousness of the combination. The claimed invention is looking for a means to send a frame to determine if a device has multi-band capability, based on different variables such as an operating class. As such, Examiner has provided a means for sending a frame to determine if a device has multi-band capability that exists within the field of art that is being claimed. The possibility of whether Liu could be adapted to specifically perform the exact claim language is not relevant to the rejection being provided and as such, Examiner respectfully does not find this argument to be persuasive.
Further still, Examiner has provided new rejections for the newly presented Claims 22-29, as well as upheld the rejections on the presently provided independent Claim and all claims depending therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kulkarni et al. (2022/0400389) - ¶0050-0053; and
Leung et al. (2017/0235357) - ¶0044.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475