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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 July 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner considers Applicant’s request for the double patenting rejection to be held in abeyance as a persuasive argument against the double patenting rejection for the amended claims. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and double patenting rejection have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Alanen.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 8-9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,416 in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2016/0219522) and Alanen et al. (US 2015/0334751). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 8-10 and 13, the parent patent recites features such as communicating in a TWT period in non-primary channels. However, the claims additionally recite features such as receiving a data unit during the TWT period and switching operation of the station. In removing the additional features, the scope of the claims is merely broadened by eliminating elements and their functions. It has been held that omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963); In re Nelson, 95 USPQ 82 (CCPA 1952); and In re Eliot, 25 USPQ 111 (CCPA 1935). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 365 (Bd. App. 1969) (omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made, pre-AIA ) to not recite the additional features.
Further, the claims of the parent patent fail to recite negotiating a TWT period and channel, and a system and method from the perspective of a station or device. However, Asterjadhi discloses a wireless device negotiating a TWT period and channel with an access point (figs. 1-3; paras. 73-74 and 79; note: STA request and AP response for a TWT period and subchannel(s)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite negotiating a TWT period and channel, and a system and method from the perspective of a station or device in the parent patent. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing a message exchange of a station for power savings when the station is not communicating as is known in the art (Asterjadhi, figs. 1-3 and paras. 73-74 and 79; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Still further, the claims of the parent patent fail to recite the first legacy packet from among a plurality of legacy packets transmitted by the access point simultaneously in respective component channels, the plurality of legacy packets including respective duplicates of the beacon frame. However, this limitation would be obvious to recite in the parent patent based on Alanen for the same reason as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Regarding claim 4, the parent patent in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen recites and makes obvious to recite the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the TWT information comprises: receiving the TWT information via the primary channel while the bandwidth-limited client station is operating in the primary component channel (Asterjadhi, para. 73, especially the first and penultimate sentences; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, the parent patent in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen recites and makes obvious to recite the method of claim 4, further comprising: transmitting, by the bandwidth-limited client station, a request to establish a TWT session via the primary component channel, wherein the request corresponds to establishing a TWT session with the access point and is configured to prompt the access point to transmit the TWT information. (Asterjadhi, para. 61, especially the first two sentences; para. 73, first sentence; figs. 3 and 15-16; note: transmission resource assignment).
Regarding claims 11-12, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 4-5, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, the parent patent in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen recites and makes obvious to recite the wireless communication device of claim 8, wherein the wireless network interface device further comprises: one or more wireless transceivers implemented at least partially on the one or more IC devices (Asterjadhi, fig. 17, item 1714; paras. 218-220).
Regarding claim 16, the parent patent in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen recites and makes obvious to recite the wireless communication device of claim 15, further comprising: one or more antennas coupled to the one or more wireless transceivers (Asterjadhi, fig. 17, item 1716).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 8-9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,416 in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2016/0219522) and Alanen et al. (US 2015/0334751) as applied to claim 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Seok (US 2016/0315675). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 7, the parent patent in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen fails to recite and make obvious to recite the method of claim 6, further comprising: measuring, at the bandwidth-limited client station, a predetermined delay time period corresponding to the start of the subsequent TWT period; and refraining, at the bandwidth-limited client station, from transmitting at least until the delay time period has expired. However, Seok discloses performing CCA on a triggered subchannel (fig. 10 and 23-25; paras. 325-337) using a backoff operation (para. 73, especially the last four sentences). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite measuring, at the bandwidth-limited client station, a predetermined delay time period corresponding to the start of the subsequent TWT period; and refraining, at the bandwidth-limited client station, from transmitting at least until the delay time period has expired in the parent patent in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing for a shared medium and reducing collisions in the shared medium as is known in the art (Seok, figs. 10 and 23-25, para. 73, especially the last sentence, and paras. 325-337; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 8-9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,416 in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2016/0219522) and Alanen et al. (US 2015/0334751) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0307653). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The parent patent in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen fails to recite and make obvious to recite the limitations of claim 17. However, Liu teaches a physical layer (PHY) processor (para. 46, penultimate sentence) implemented on the one or more IC devices the PHY processor configured to: extract one or more MAC protocol data units (MPDUs) from one or more PHY protocol data units (PPDUs) received from the access point via the particular non-primary component channel during the TWT period (para. 86; note: a PLCP PDU is a MPDU; para. 50; note: MAC frame; para. 67; note: 802.11 protocol specifying MAC and PHY details and operations), and extract the beacon frame from the legacy packet received from the access point in the particular non-primary component channel (fig. 9A); and a media access control (MAC) processor implemented on the one or more IC devices and coupled to the PHY processor (para. 46, penultimate sentence), the MAC processor configured to: receive the one or more MPDUs from the PHY processor, process the one or more MPDUs received, receive the beacon frame from the PHY processor, and process the beacon frame (para. 77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite the wireless network interface device further comprises: a physical layer (PHY) processor implemented on the one or more IC devices the PHY processor configured to: extract one or more MAC protocol data units (MPDUs) from one or more PHY protocol data units (PPDUs) received from the access point via the particular non-primary component channel during the TWT period, and extract the beacon frame from the legacy packet received from the access point in the particular non-primary component channel; and a media access control (MAC) processor implemented on the one or more IC devices and coupled to the PHY processor, the MAC processor configured to: receive the one or more MPDUs from the PHY processor, process the one or more MPDUs received, receive the beacon frame from the PHY processor, and process the beacon frame in the parent patent in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, processing multi-layered communication as is known in the art (Liu, fig. 9A and paras. 46, 50, 67, 77 and 86; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,752 in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2016/0219522) and Alanen et al. (US 2015/0334751). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-17, the parent patent recites features such as communicating in a TWT period in non-primary channels. However, the claims additionally recite features such as receiving a data unit during the TWT period and switching operation of the station. In removing the additional features, the scope of the claims is merely broadened by eliminating elements and their functions. It has been held that omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963); In re Nelson, 95 USPQ 82 (CCPA 1952); and In re Eliot, 25 USPQ 111 (CCPA 1935). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 365 (Bd. App. 1969) (omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made, pre-AIA ) to not recite the additional features.
Further, the claims of the parent patent fail to recite negotiating a TWT period and channel. However, Asterjadhi discloses negotiating a TWT period and channel (figs. 1-3; paras. 73-74 and 79; note: STA request and AP response for a TWT period and subchannel(s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite negotiating a TWT period and channel in the parent patent. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing a message exchange for power savings for device that is not communicating as is known in the art (Asterjadhi, figs. 1-3 and paras. 73-74 and 79; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, the claims of the parent patent fail to recite the first legacy packet from among a plurality of legacy packets transmitted by the access point simultaneously in respective component channels, the plurality of legacy packets including respective duplicates of the beacon frame. However, this limitation would be obvious to recite in the parent patent based on Alanen for the same reason as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2014/0307653) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2016/0219522) and Alanen et al. (US 2015/0334751). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method for communicating in a wireless local area network (WLAN) (figs. 6-10D) that utilizes a communication channel (figs. 9A-9B, the aggregate of the subchannels) having a plurality of component channels (figs. 9A-9B, each subchannel for transmission of a station; para. 93; para. 84; note: primary and non-primary channels), the plurality of component channels including i) at least one primary component channel in which an access point transmits management frames including beacon frames (fig. 9A-9B, channel with beacon B; paras. 90 and 94, and ii) one or more non-primary component channels (fig. 9A-9B, all other channels), the method comprising: negotiating (fig. 9A-9B; note: poll and poll response during the beacon poll period and identification of user time/frequency for UL transmission – figs. 5A-5D, paras. 62-66 and 93), at a bandwidth-limited client station that is configured to operate with a maximum bandwidth that is less than a full bandwidth of the communication channel (figs. 5A-5D and para. 79; note: device configured to operate in 5-20 MHz channels of an 80 MHz communication channel bandwidth; par. 93; note: assigned channel and time period for a device), a target time (TT) period with the access point, including negotiating a particular non-primary component channel among the one or more non-primary component channels in which the bandwidth-limited client station is expected to operate during the TT period (para. 93, especially the last sentence; note: indicated time periods for UL communication; paras. 85 and 94; para. 90, especially lines 12-27; note: assigning a channel for a station); operating the bandwidth-limited client station in the particular non-primary component channel at least during the TT period (fig. 9A-9B, UL transmission following the DL transmission); receiving, at the bandwidth-limited client station, a first legacy packet from the access point in the particular non-primary component channel, the first legacy packet including a beacon frame (figs. 9A, beacon B; fig. 8C and para. 90, especially the second sentence; note: beacon frame; note: legacy as an 802.11 protocol packet – para. 41, especially the second sentence; paras. 67-68; note: HE stations using an existing 802.11 protocol); receiving, at the bandwidth-limited client station, a trigger frame (fig. 9A, DL frame including assignment information; paras. 93-94 and 96) from the access point in a second legacy packet in the particular non-primary component channel during the TT period (fig. 9A and paras. 41 and 67-68; note: legacy frame as a frame transmitted to devices operating in an 802.11 protocol; note: non-primary channel are channels that do not transmit a beacon), the trigger frame configured to prompt the bandwidth-limited client station to transmit an uplink transmission in the particular non-primary component channel (fig. 9A and para. 93); and in response to the trigger frame, transmitting, by the bandwidth-limited client station, the uplink transmission in the particular non-primary component channel (fig. 9A and para. 93).
However, Liu discloses a TT period but fails to disclose a target wake time (TWT) period with the access point. Asterjadhi discloses this feature (figs. 1-3; para. 79). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a TWT period in the invention of Liu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing power savings for device while not communicating as is known in the art (Asterjadhi, figs. 1-3 and para. 79; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Liu in view of Asterjadhi fails to teach and make obvious the first legacy packet from among a plurality of legacy packets transmitted by the access point simultaneously in respective component channels, the plurality of legacy packets including respective duplicates of the beacon frame. However, Alanen discloses this feature (figs. 10-11; paras. 57-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first legacy packet from among a plurality of legacy packets transmitted by the access point simultaneously in respective component channels, the plurality of legacy packets including respective duplicates of the beacon frame in the invention of Liu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing redundant beacons to aid in beacon detection as is known in the art (Alanen, figs. 10-11 and paras. 57-58; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Asterjadhi teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the bandwidth-limited client station during the TWT period, a data unit from the access point via the particular non-primary component channel (Liu, fig. 9A, header and DL; paras. 90-91 and 93; note: assigned communication time periods; Asterjadhi, fig. 13 and paras. 115, 141 and 166).
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Asterjadhi teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the TWT information comprises: receiving the TWT information via the primary channel while the bandwidth-limited client station is operating in the primary component channel (Liu, figs. 8C; fig. 9A, especially STA 2; para. 90, especially lines 12-27; Asterjadhi, figs. 1-3 and para. 79).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses receiving transmission information from a request (para. 82; note: request for UL transmission and subsequent assigning of a channel) but Liu in view of the embodiment of Asterjadhi fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 4, further comprising: transmitting, by the bandwidth-limited client station, a request to establish a TWT session via the primary component channel, wherein the request corresponds to establishing a TWT session with the access point and is configured to prompt the access point to transmit the TWT information. However, in another embodiment, Asterjadhi discloses a request to establish a TWT session via the primary channel to receive TWT information (para. 61, especially the first two sentences; para. 73, first sentence; figs. 15-16; note: transmission resource assignment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have transmitting, by the bandwidth-limited client station, a request to establish a TWT session via the primary component channel, wherein the request corresponds to establishing a TWT session with the access point and is configured to prompt the access point to transmit the TWT information in the invention of Liu in view of the embodiment of Asterjadhi. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, allocating resources as requested as is known in the art (Asterjadhi, paras. 61 and 73, and figs. 15-16; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Asterjadhi teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: switching operation of the bandwidth-limited client station from one of the at least one primary component channels to the particular non-primary component channel in connection with a start of a subsequent TWT period (Liu, fig. 9A, especially STA1, STA3 and STA4; note: the beacon polling period is within the primary channel, and the transmissions after the period are on other subchannels).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 11-13, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-2 and 4-6, respectively. In addition, Liu discloses a wireless communication device (fig. 1, item 128; fig. 3, item 310; figs. 6-10D) for communicating in a wireless local area network (WLAN) in the method of claim 1, the wireless communication device comprising: a wireless network interface device (fig. 3, item 320) that is configured to operate according to the method of claim 1, wherein the wireless network interface device comprises one or more integrated circuit (IC) devices (para. 46, penultimate sentence) configured to perform (paras. 103-105) the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Asterjadhi teaches and makes obvious the wireless communication device of claim 8, wherein the wireless network interface device further comprises: one or more wireless transceivers implemented at least partially on the one or more IC devices (Liu, fig. 3A, items 322 and 324).
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Asterjadhi teaches and makes obvious the wireless communication device of claim 15, further comprising: one or more antennas coupled to the one or more wireless transceivers (Liu, fig. 3A, item 310; note: antenna).
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Asterjadhi teaches and makes obvious the wireless communication device of claim 8, wherein the wireless network interface device further comprises: a physical layer (PHY) processor (Liu, para. 46, penultimate sentence) implemented on the one or more IC devices the PHY processor configured to: extract one or more MAC protocol data units (MPDUs) from one or more PHY protocol data units (PPDUs) received from the access point via the particular non-primary component channel during the TWT period (Liu, para. 86; note: a PLCP PDU is a MPDU; para. 50; note: MAC frame; para. 67; note: 802.11 protocol specifying MAC and PHY details and operations), and extract the beacon frame from the legacy packet received from the access point in the particular non-primary component channel (Liu, fig. 9A); and a media access control (MAC) processor implemented on the one or more IC devices and coupled to the PHY processor (Liu, para. 46, penultimate sentence), the MAC processor configured to: receive the one or more MPDUs from the PHY processor, process the one or more MPDUs received, receive the beacon frame from the PHY processor, and process the beacon frame (Liu, para. 77).
Claims 3, 7, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Asterjadhi and Alanen as applied to claim 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Seok (US 2016/0315675).
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Asterjadhi teaches and makes obvious using backoff and CCA in a shared medium (Liu, paras. 50, 67-69, 76 and 90 (especially lines 14-16)) but fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing, at the bandwidth-limited client station, a backoff operation during the TWT period and prior to transmitting the uplink transmission in response to the trigger frame; and not transmitting the uplink transmission in response to the trigger frame in response to the backoff operation indicating that the particular non-primary component channel is not clear for transmission; wherein transmitting the uplink transmission in response to the trigger frame comprises transmitting the uplink transmission further in response to the backoff operation indicating that the particular non-primary component channel is clear for transmission. Seok discloses performing CCA on a triggered subchannel (fig. 10 and 23-25; paras. 325-337) using a backoff operation (para. 73, especially the last four sentences). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performing, at the bandwidth-limited client station, a backoff operation during the TWT period and prior to transmitting the uplink transmission in response to the trigger frame; and not transmitting the uplink transmission in response to the trigger frame in response to the backoff operation indicating that the particular non-primary component channel is not clear for transmission; wherein transmitting the uplink transmission in response to the trigger frame comprises transmitting the uplink transmission further in response to the backoff operation indicating that the particular non-primary component channel is clear for transmission in the invention of Liu in view of Asterjadhi. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing for a shared medium and reducing collisions in the shared medium as is known in the art (Seok, figs. 10 and 23-25, para. 73, especially the last sentence, and paras. 325-337; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Asterjadhi fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 6, further comprising: measuring, at the bandwidth-limited client station, a predetermined delay time period corresponding to the start of the subsequent TWT period; and refraining, at the bandwidth-limited client station, from transmitting at least until the delay time period has expired. Seok discloses performing CCA on a triggered subchannel (fig. 10 and 23-25; paras. 325-337) using a backoff operation (para. 73, especially the last four sentences). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have measuring, at the bandwidth-limited client station, a predetermined delay time period corresponding to the start of the subsequent TWT period; and refraining, at the bandwidth-limited client station, from transmitting at least until the delay time period has expired in the invention of Liu in view of Asterjadhi. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing for a shared medium and reducing collisions in the shared medium as is known in the art (Seok, figs. 10 and 23-25, para. 73, especially the last sentence, and paras. 325-337; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 3 and 7, respectively.
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 Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s personal fax number is 571-273-3166 and the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462