DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 10-11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 10 and 11; Arguments are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20190230581) hereinafter Hwang in view of Kopikare et al. (US 20140022973) hereinafter KOPIKARE, and in further view of Ramachandran et al. (US 20100075680 A1) hereinafter Ramachandran.
Regarding claim 1,
Hwang teaches a communication apparatus configured to perform, in parallel, a function for participating in a first communication network to perform communication and a function for participating in a second communication network to perform communication , the communication apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing a program (memory storing instructions [0023] and [0077]-[0078]; element 540 of Fig. 5); and at least one processor that executes the stored program (processor executing the instructions [0023] and [0077]-[0078]; element 510 of Fig. 5), which cause the at least one processor to: receive a first frame periodically transmitted from a first other communication apparatus that forms the first communication network, and a second frame periodically transmitted from a second other communication apparatus that forms the second communication network (low power station comprising a PCR and WUR configured to monitor beacon and WUR frames from multiple access points connected to their respective local network, each access point periodically transmitting their respective frames; [0110] and [0135]-[0141]; Figs. 8, 11, 12, and 13), and control the communication apparatus to determine whether to transition to a second state after receiving the first frame, in a case where the communication apparatus operates while transitioning between a first state and the second state , the second state being a state in which power consumption is lower than in the first state (PCR causes low power station to transition to WUR mode after receiving the first beacon frame, the WUR mode consuming lower power than the normal mode [0006], [0087], [0116]-[0117]; Figs. 8, 11, 12, and 13),
Hwang does not explicitly teach transitioning based on a time period measured between the reception of the first frame from the first communication network and the reception of the second frame from the second communication network, and in a case where the communication apparatus receives the second frame from the second other communication apparatus after receiving, in the first state, the first frame transmitted from the first other communication apparatus, wherein in a case where the time period is less than a predetermined time, the at least one processor further causes the communication apparatus to prevent transitioning from the first state to the second state within the time period.
KOPIKARE teaches in a case where the communication apparatus receives the second frame from the second other communication apparatus [after receiving, in the first state, the first frame transmitted from the first other communication apparatus] (transitioning to power saving mode after receiving a beacon from a third device after receiving from a second device while operating in normal mode [0060] and [0065]-[0075]; Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of KOPIKARE to the teachings of Hwang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce power consumption (KOPIKARE [0032]).
Hwang and KOPIKARE do not explicitly teach transitioning based on a time period measured between the reception of the first frame from the first communication network and the reception of the second frame from the second communication network, wherein in a case where the time period is less than a predetermined time, the at least one processor further causes the communication apparatus to prevent transitioning from the first state to the second state within the time period.
Ramachandran teaches transitioning based on a time period measured between the reception of the first frame from the first communication network and the reception of the second frame from the second communication network (transitioning to a hysteresis state based on a time period between the reception of AP-1 parameters and reception of AP-2 parameters [0058]-[0061]; Figs. 4-5), wherein in a case where the time period is less than a predetermined time (the time being less than W2 [0032]-[0041]; Fig. 1B), the at least one processor further causes the communication apparatus to prevent transitioning from the first state to the second state within the time period (preventing preregistration in case the hysteresis timer is below a threshold [0058]-[0061]; Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Ramachandran to the teachings of Hwang and KOPIKARE. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the terminal to operate in two types of networks (Ramachandran [0005]).
Regarding claim 6,
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Hwang further teaches the first frame and the second frame are Beacon frames conforming to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standards (beacon frames according to IEEE 802.11 standards [0110]).
Regarding claim 8,
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Hwang further teaches the communication apparatus operates in a power save mode conforming to IEEE 802.11 standards (low-power using protocols defined in IEEE 802.11 standard [0075]).
Regarding claim 9,
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Hwang further teaches the first other communication apparatus and the second other communication apparatus operate as access points (APs) conforming to IEEE 802.11 standards (AP apparatuses conforming to IEEE 802.11 standard [0052]-[0053]).
Claim 10 “communication method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “communication apparatus”.
Claim 11 “Computer Readable Storage Medium” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “communication apparatus”.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, KOPIKARE, and Ramachandran in further view of Luo et al. (US20230024741) hereinafter Luo.
Regarding claim 2,
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran do not explicitly teach the at least one processor further provides a user with a notification that power saving efficiency will deteriorate if the control unit continues the first state.
Luo teaches the at least one processor further provides a user with a notification that power saving efficiency will deteriorate if the control unit continues the first state (GUI notifying the user that the current state needs to be changed to save power [0014] and [0274]; Figs. 13A-13D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Luo to the teachings of Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve user experience (Luo [0004]).
Regarding claim 3,
Hwang, KOPIKARE, Ramachandran, and Luo teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran do not explicitly teach the at least one processor provides the notification when the communication apparatus establishes connection with the second other communication apparatus.
Luo teaches the at least one processor provides the notification when the communication apparatus establishes connection with the second other communication apparatus (network identifier changing from “4G” to “5G” when an NR link is established [0341]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Luo to the teachings of Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve user experience (Luo [0004]).
Regarding claim 4,
Hwang, KOPIKARE, Ramachandran, and Luo teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran do not explicitly teach the at least one processor provides the user with the notification of information about a power saving state when the communication apparatus establishes connection with the first other communication apparatus and the second other communication apparatus.
Luo teaches the at least one processor provides the user with the notification of information about a power saving state when the communication apparatus establishes connection with the first other communication apparatus and the second other communication apparatus (remaining time when power saving mode is enabled; Figs. 11E, 12E, and 18F).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Luo to the teachings of Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve user experience (Luo [0004]).
Regarding claim 5,
Hwang, KOPIKARE, Hsu, and Luo teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Hsu do not explicitly teach a reception unit configured to receive an input from the user, wherein the notification unit prompts the user to select, using the reception unit, whether to establish connection with both the first other communication apparatus and the second other communication apparatus, or either the first other communication apparatus or the second other communication apparatus.
Luo teaches a reception unit configured to receive an input from the user, wherein the notification unit prompts the user to select, using the reception unit, whether to establish connection with both the first other communication apparatus and the second other communication apparatus, or either the first other communication apparatus or the second other communication apparatus (prompt causing the user to release the NR link while maintaining the LTE link [0274]; Fig. 13D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Luo to the teachings of Hwang, KOPIKARE and Hsu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve user experience (Luo [0004]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, KOPIKARE, and Ramachandran in further view of Cariou et al. (US20200137683) hereinafter Cariou.
Regarding claim 7,
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran do not explicitly teach an interval between the first frames and an interval between the second frames are Delivery Traffic Indication Message (DTIM) intervals conforming to IEEE 802.11 standards.
Cariou teaches an interval between the first frames and an interval between the second frames are Delivery Traffic Indication Message (DTIM) intervals conforming to IEEE 802.11 standards (traffic indication message [0014]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Cariou to the teachings of Hwang, KOPIKARE and Ramachandran. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would save power (Cariou [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465