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 .
Status of the Claims
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 24 November 2025), Claims 1-20 are pending.
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 24 November 2025), Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection of Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 6 and Claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1-10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 11-18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 11-18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-9, 10-11, 15-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that (1) Chitrakar does not disclose, teach or suggest “wherein there is a peer-to-peer (P2P link established between the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA” and “wherein the first frame is arranged to inform the second non-AP STA of a subband transition at the first non-AP STA” because the peer-to-peer(P2P) link in Applicant’s claim 1 is not analogous to a Tunneled Direct Link Setup (TDLS) link taught by Chitrakar (Remarks, 24 November 2025, Pgs. 9-11, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102), and (2) Chitrakar does not disclose, teach or suggest “wherein the first frame is arranged to inform the second non-AP STA of a subband transition at the first non-AP STA” because the subband transition in Applicant’s claim 1 is not analogous to the TDLS direct link channel switch of Chitrakar (Remarks, 24 November 2025, Pgs. 9-11, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102).
With regard to Applicant’s assertion that Chitrakar does not disclose, teach or suggest “wherein there is a peer-to-peer (P2P link established between the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA” because the “peer-to-peer(P2P) link in Applicant’s claim 1 is not analogous to a Tunneled Direct Link Setup (TDLS) link taught by Chitrakar” (Remarks, 24 November 2025, Pgs. 9-11, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s reasoning, that the direct communication link between STA-1 and STA-2 is a tunneled link and not a peer-to-peer link, is incorrect. Chitrakar discloses that the link between STA-1 and STA-2 is a direct communication link, or a peer-to-peer link (Chitrakar, ¶49-50 & Fig. 1A) and further discloses that the signaling exchanged between STA-1 and STA-2 is tunneled through the AP (Chitrakar, ¶49-50 & Fig. 1A). Thus, Applicant has confused the path that the signaling takes (which is tunneled through the AP) as the peer-to-peer link of Applicant’s claims. Examiner will continue to apply the Chitrakar reference to this particular limitation.
With regard to Applicant’s assertion that Chitrakar does not disclose, teach or suggest Chitrakar does not disclose, teach or suggest “wherein the first frame is arranged to inform the second non-AP STA of a subband transition at the first non-AP STA” because the subband transition in Applicant’s claim 1 is not analogous to the TDLS direct link channel switch of Chitrakar (Remarks, 24 November 2025, Pgs. 9-11, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102) and because “a skilled artesian should readily appreciate that the TDLS link is not a peer-to-peer (P2P) link between STAs that is set up without via AP” (Remarks, 24 November 2025, Pg. 10, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is contradicting Applicant’s claims, which state, in part, that “send the first frame to the second non-AP STA through the network interface circuit [of the wireless communication device]” (See Claims, 24 November 2025, See Claim 1). Here, Applicant’s claims explicitly state that the frame to indicate the subband transition is sent from a first non-AP STA to a second non-AP STA through the network interface of the AP. Examiner notes that Applicant does not appear to understand that the signaling, not the P2P link, is tunneled through the AP in the Chitrakar reference and further does not understand that Claim 1 of Applicant’s claims indicates a similar form of relaying or tunnelling of the signaling. Examiner will continue to apply the Chitrakar reference to this particular limitation as well.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 10 and Claim 19, Examiner maintains the Chitrakar to the particular limitations of the prior rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant argues that Chitrakar “fails to read on above-identified limitations” (Remarks, 24 November 2025, Pg. 13, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, and 15-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chitrakar et al. (US 20220312513 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Chitrakar”).
Regarding Claim 20, Chitrakar discloses a wireless communication device comprising:
a network interface circuit (¶109-110 & Fig. 18, Chitrakar discloses an access point (AP) comprising a wireless interface (I/F). Examiner correlates the wireless I/F of the AP to "a network interface circuit"), arranged to communicate with a first wireless communication device (¶65 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the wireless I/F of the AP is arranged to communicate with a first station (STA1) and a second station (STA2). Examiner correlates the STA2 to "a first wireless communication device". Examiner correlates the STA1 to "a second wireless communication device"), wherein there is a peer-to-peer link established between the first wireless communication device and a second wireless communication device (¶65 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the STA1 and the STA2 are configured to establish a TDLS direct link on a base channel); and
a control circuit (¶109-110 & Fig. 18, Chitrakar discloses the AP further comprising a central processing unit (CPU) 1806. Examiner correlates the CPU of the AP to "a control circuit"), arranged to perform a frame exchange sequence between the wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device on a primary band (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses exchanging frames between the AP and the STA1 on a 6GHz band) and a frame exchange sequence between the wireless communication device and the first wireless communication device on a subband in a time-division multiplexing (TDM) manner (¶11 & ¶13, Chitrakar discloses exchanging frames between the AP and the STA1 in transmission opportunities (TxOPs). Examiner correlates the act of sub-dividing time on a wireless medium into TxOPs as “time-division multiplexing (TDM) manner”).
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.
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 1-4, 6-9, 10-11, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Shafin et al. (US 20230337316 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Shafin”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chitrakar discloses a wireless communication device comprising:
a network interface circuit (¶109-110 & Fig. 18, Chitrakar discloses an access point (AP) comprising a wireless interface (I/F). Examiner correlates the wireless I/F of the AP to "a network interface circuit"), arranged to communicate with a first non-access point station (non-AP STA) and a second non-AP STA (¶65-66 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the wireless I/F of the AP is arranged to communicate with a first station (STA1) and a second station (STA2). Examiner correlates the STA2 to "a first wireless communication device". Examiner correlates the STA1 to "a second wireless communication device"), wherein there is a peer-to-peer link established between the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA (¶65-66 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the STA1 and the STA2 are configured to establish a TDLS direct link on a base channel); and
a control circuit (¶109-110 & Fig. 18, Chitrakar discloses the AP further comprising a central processing unit (CPU) 1806. Examiner correlates the CPU of the AP to "a control circuit"), arranged to generate a first frame and send the first frame to the second non-AP STA through the network interface circuit (¶65-66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the AP is configured to generate a TDLS Channel Use Permission Response and send the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to STA1 through the wireless I/F of the AP. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to "a first frame"), wherein the first frame is arranged to inform the second non-AP STA of a subband transition at the first non-AP STA (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to inform STA1 of a TDLS channel switch to an off-channel in the 6 GHz band at both STA2 and STA1).
However, Chitrakar does not disclose the subband transition at the first non-AP STA enables frame exchange on a subband between the first non-AP STA and the wireless communication device.
Shafin, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the subband transition at the first non-AP STA enables frame exchange on a subband between the first non-AP STA and the wireless communication device (¶64 & Fig. 3, Shafin discloses that the off-channel TDLS channel switch enables frame exchange on the off-channel between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD provided the AP MLD initiates a TID-to-link mapping negotiation. Examiner correlates the off-channel TDLS channel switch to “the subband transition”. Examiner correlates the non-AP MLD to “the first non-AP STA”. Examiner correlates the AP MLD to “the wireless communication device”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar by requiring that the subband transition at the first non-AP STA enables frame exchange on a subband between the first non-AP STA and the wireless communication device as taught by Shafin because peer-to-peer communication is improved by facilitating the avoidance of potential NSTR constraint violation or overlap caused by TDLS channel switching and link enablement in MLO in a wireless local area network (Shafin, ¶7).
Regarding Claim 2, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the control circuit is further arranged to generate a second frame and send the second frame to the first non-AP STA through the network interface circuit (¶65-66 & Fig. 3 (312), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the AP is configured to generate a TDLS Channel Use Permission Response and send the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to STA1 through the wireless I/F of the AP. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to "a second frame"), and the second frame is arranged to carry timing information of the subband transition at the non-AP STA that is requested by the wireless communication device (¶70-73 & Fig. 4C, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel).
Regarding Claim 3, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 2.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the first frame and the second frame are included in a same physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response frame) that is transmitted by Multiple User-Multiple Input Multiple Output (MU-MIMO) or Multiple User-Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (MU-OFDMA) (¶2, Chitrakar discloses that the AP is compliant with either IEEE 802.11ax and IEEE 802.11be standards where both standards are capable of transmitting messages by Multiple User-Multiple Input Multiple Output (MU-MIMO)).
Regarding Claim 4, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the control circuit is further arranged to send the first frame to the first non-AP STA through the network interface circuit (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the AP is configured to generate a TDLS Channel Use Permission Response and send the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to STA1 through the wireless I/F of the AP. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to "a first frame"), and the first frame is further arranged to carry timing information of the subband transition at the first non-AP STA that is requested by the wireless communication device (¶71, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel).
Regarding Claim 6, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the control circuit is further arranged to receive a second frame from the first non-AP STA through the network interface circuit (¶66 & Fig. 3 (308), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the AP is configured to receive a TDLS Channel Use Permission Request from STA2 through the wireless I/F of the AP. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Request to "a second frame"), and the second frame is arranged to carry timing information of the subband transition requested by the first non-AP STA (¶71, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel).
Regarding Claim 7, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the first frame includes parameters that are identical to parameters of the subband transition at the first non-AP STA (¶70-72 & Fig. 4C, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel).
Regarding Claim 8, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the first frame includes parameters that are not identical to parameters of the subband transition at the first non-AP STA (¶71, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes an Alternate Channel field and a Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch element).
Regarding Claim 9, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the control circuit is further arranged to generate a second frame and send the second frame to the second non-AP STA through the network interface circuit (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the AP is configured to generate a TDLS Channel Use Permission Response and send the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to STA1 through the wireless I/F of the AP. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to "a first frame"), and the second frame is arranged to inform the second non-AP STA of an ending status of the subband transition (¶71, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel. Here, an indication of validity time would indicate a starting time of a validity period and an ending time of the validity period).
Regarding Claim 10, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses a wireless communication device comprising:
a network interface circuit (¶107-108 & Fig. 17, Chitrakar discloses a station (STA) comprising a wireless interface (I/F). Examiner correlates the wireless I/F of the STA to "a network interface circuit"), arranged to communicate with a non-access point station (non-AP STA) (¶65 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the wireless I/F of STA1 is arranged to communicate with a second station (STA2). Examiner correlates STA1 to “a wireless communication device”. Examiner correlates the STA2 to "a non-access point station"), wherein there is a peer-to-peer link established between the wireless communication device and the non-AP STA (¶65 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that there is a link established between the STA1 and the STA2); and
a control circuit (¶107-108 & Fig. 17, Chitrakar discloses the STA further comprising a central processing unit (CPU) 1706. Examiner correlates the CPU of the AP to "a control circuit"), arranged to generate a first frame and send the first frame through the network interface circuit (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the STA1 is configured to generate a TDLS Channel Switch Request and send, from the STA1, the TDLS Channel Switch Request to STA2 through the wireless I/F of the STA1. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Switch Request to "a first frame"), wherein the first frame is arranged to inform the non-AP STA of a subband transition at the wireless communication device (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Switch Request is configured to inform STA2 of a TDLS channel switch to an off-channel in the 6 GHz band at both STA2 and STA1).
However, Chitrakar does not disclose the subband transition at the wireless communication device enables frame exchange on a subband between an access point (AP) and the wireless communication device.
Shafin, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the subband transition at the wireless communication device enables frame exchange on a subband between an access point (AP) and the wireless communication device (¶64 & Fig. 3, Shafin discloses that the off-channel TDLS channel switch enables frame exchange on the off-channel between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD provided the AP MLD initiates a TID-to-link mapping negotiation. Examiner correlates the off-channel TDLS channel switch to “the subband transition”. Examiner correlates the non-AP MLD to “the first non-AP STA”. Examiner correlates the AP MLD to “the wireless communication device”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar by requiring that the subband transition at the wireless communication device enables frame exchange on a subband between an access point (AP) and the wireless communication device as taught by Shafin because peer-to-peer communication is improved by facilitating the avoidance of potential NSTR constraint violation or overlap caused by TDLS channel switching and link enablement in MLO in a wireless local area network (Shafin, ¶7).
Regarding Claim 11, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 10.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the network interface circuit is further arranged to communicate with a second wireless communication device (¶65 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the wireless I/F of the STA is configured to communicate with an access point (AP). Examiner correlates the AP to “a second wireless communication device”), the control circuit is further arranged to receive a second frame from the second wireless communication device through the network interface circuit (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the STA1 is configured to receive a TDLS Channel Use Permission Response from the AP through the wireless I/F of the STA1. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to "a second frame"), and the second frame is arranged to carry timing information of the subband transition at the wireless communication device that is requested by the second wireless communication device (¶71, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel).
Regarding Claim 15, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 10.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the network interface circuit is further arranged to communicate with a second wireless communication device (¶65 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the wireless I/F of the STA is configured to communicate with an access point (AP)), the control circuit is further arranged to generate a second frame and send the second frame to the second wireless communication device through the network interface circuit (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the STA1 is configured to generate and transmit a TDLS Channel Use Permission Request to the AP through the wireless I/F of the STA1. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to "a second frame"), where the second frame is arranged to carry timing information of the subband transition requested by the wireless communication device (¶70-72 & Figs. 4C, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel); and the first frame is generated based on the second frame (¶66 & Fig. 3 (312), Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Switch Request is based on TDLS Channel Use Permission Response), and is sent to the first wireless communication device (¶66 & Fig. 3 (312), Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Switch Request is sent to the STA2).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 10.
Chitrakar further discloses wherein the control circuit is further arranged to generate a second frame and send the second frame to the first wireless communication device through the network interface circuit (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the AP is configured to generate a TDLS Channel Use Permission Response and send the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to STA1 through the wireless I/F of the AP. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to "a first frame"), and the second frame is arranged to inform the first wireless communication device of an ending status of the subband transition (¶71-72 & Fig. 4C, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to includes a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel. Here, an indication of validity time would indicate a starting time of a validity period and an ending time of the validity period).
Regarding Claim 19, Chitrakar discloses a wireless communication device comprising:
a network interface circuit (¶109-110 & Fig. 18, Chitrakar discloses an access point (AP) comprising a wireless interface (I/F). Examiner correlates the wireless I/F of the AP to "a network interface circuit"), arranged to communicate with a first non-access point station (non-AP STA) (¶65 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the wireless I/F of the AP is arranged to communicate with a first station (STA1) and a second station (STA2). Examiner correlates the STA2 to "a first wireless communication device". Examiner correlates the STA1 to "a second wireless communication device"), wherein there is a peer-to-peer link established between the first non-AP STA and a second non-AP STA (¶65 & Fig. 3, Chitrakar discloses that the STA1 and the STA2 are configured to establish a TDLS direct link on a base channel); and
a control circuit (¶109-110 & Fig. 18, Chitrakar discloses the AP further comprising a central processing unit (CPU) 1806. Examiner correlates the CPU of the AP to "a control circuit"), arranged to generate a frame and send the frame to the first non-AP STA through the network interface circuit (¶66 & Fig. 3 (310), Chitrakar discloses that the CPU of the AP is configured to generate a TDLS Channel Use Permission Response and send the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to STA1 through the wireless I/F of the AP. Examiner correlates the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response to "a first frame"), wherein the frame is arranged to carry timing information of a subband transition at the first non-AP STA that is requested by the wireless communication device (¶71, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response is configured to include a validity time in which to perform the switch to a different channel), and is further arranged to carry a network allocation vector (NAV) setting to protect a period on a primary band (¶70-72 & Fig. 4C, Chitrakar discloses that the TDLS Channel Use Permission Response comprises a Media Access Control (MAC) header that includes a Duration field. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed, would know that the Duration of the MAC header is a Network Allocation Vector (NAV) setting, which is the duration of time that the transmitting station will occupy the medium), wherein the first non-AP STA operates on the subband during the period (¶71, Chitrakar discloses that STA2 operates on a channel in the 5GHz band during the duration of time corresponding to the Duration Field).
However, Chitrakar does not disclose the subband transition at the first non-AP STA enables frame exchange on a subband between the first non-APSTA and the wireless communication device.
Shafin, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the subband transition at the first non-AP STA enables frame exchange on a subband between the first non-APSTA and the wireless communication device (¶64 & Fig. 3, Shafin discloses that the off-channel TDLS channel switch enables frame exchange on the off-channel between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD provided the AP MLD initiates a TID-to-link mapping negotiation. Examiner correlates the off-channel TDLS channel switch to “the subband transition”. Examiner correlates the non-AP MLD to “the first non-AP STA”. Examiner correlates the AP MLD to “the wireless communication device”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar by requiring that the subband transition at the first non-AP STA enables frame exchange on a subband between the first non-APSTA and the wireless communication device as taught by Shafin because peer-to-peer communication is improved by facilitating the avoidance of potential NSTR constraint violation or overlap caused by TDLS channel switching and link enablement in MLO in a wireless local area network (Shafin, ¶7).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Shafin in further view of Seok et al. (US 20140086200 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Seok”).
Regarding Claim 5, Chitrakar in view of Shafin discloses the wireless communication device of claim 4.
However, Chitrakar in view of Shafin does not disclose wherein the first frame is a multi-user request to send (MU-RTS) trigger frame.
Seok, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first frame is a multi-user request to send (MU-RTS) trigger frame (¶206, Seok discloses encapsulating either a Channel Switch Request frame or a Channel Switch Response frame into a Request-To-Send frame).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar in view of Shafin by requiring that the first frame is a multi-user request to send (MU-RTS) trigger frame as taught by Seok because sub-channel selective access is rendered more efficient by enabling a device to perform and support sub-channel selective access (Seok, ¶8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474