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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 07/19/2023.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claims 6-11 are objected to for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-7, 12-18 are rejected.
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 1-5, 14-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramesh Radhakrishnan et al (US 7573857 B1).
For Claim 1, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 4, lines 20-21, that FIG. 4 is a state diagram of a process for allowing an AP device to dynamically select a frequency channel) comprising
a processing unit configured to, in a case where a first request for radio wave use of a first wireless communication apparatus belonging to a first group is received (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 4, lines 61-63, that an original AP device may send a probe request on a frequency channel, directed at other AP devices operating in the vicinity), determine parameter information regarding a radio wave capable of being used for the first wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 4, lines 61-63, that In state 404, a particular frequency channel is selected, taking into account the measurements obtained in state 402. In the present embodiment, the frequency channel having the least amount of signal occupancy may be chosen as the selected frequency channel) on a basis of installation environment information regarding the first wireless communication apparatus and another wireless communication apparatus belonging to the first group (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 33-34, that As shown in FIG. 2, the AP devices of the two floors form a single 802.11 wireless local area network).
Radhakrishnan further teaches, in Col. 5, lines 20-24, that A state 406 may follow state 404. In state 406, AP device conducts normal operations using the selected frequency channel. This may include communication of data on the selected frequency channel with different STA devices associated with the AP device.
For Claim 2, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, wherein the processing unit determines the parameter information (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 33-34, that In state 408, the AP device may determine whether the current frequency channel it is using is suitable for continued operation. Such an determination may involve evaluating various measurements discussed previously) on a basis of a state in which the another wireless communication apparatus uses the radio wave (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 7, lines 15-18, that the frequency selection process takes into account not only signal strength measurements such as RSSI and SIR, but also the load of neighboring AP devices using the same frequency channel).
For Claim 3, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, wherein the processing unit determines, as the parameter information, at least a frequency capable of being used for the first wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 33-34, that In state 408, the AP device may determine whether the current frequency channel it is using is suitable for continued operation. Such an determination may involve evaluating various measurements discussed previously).
For Claim 4, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, wherein the first group is a group to which a plurality of the wireless communication apparatuses installed on different floors in a building having a plurality of floors belongs (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 32-46, that As shown in FIG. 2, the AP devices of the two floors form a single 802.11 wireless local area network. For example, an AP device 202 having a corresponding cell 204 is deployed on the second floor … a AP device 210 deployed on the first floor and having a corresponding cell 212).
For Claim 5, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, wherein the installation environment information includes information regarding a floor where the first wireless communication apparatus and the another wireless communication apparatus are installed (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 32-46, that As shown in FIG. 2, the AP devices of the two floors form a single 802.11 wireless local area network. For example, an AP device 202 having a corresponding cell 204 is deployed on the second floor … a AP device 210 deployed on the first floor and having a corresponding cell 212 may interfere with AP device 202 [deployed on the second floor]), and the processing unit determines a frequency capable of being used by the first wireless communication apparatus on a basis of a floor number difference between the first wireless communication apparatus and the another wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 33-34, that In state 408, the AP device may determine whether the current frequency channel it is using is suitable for continued operation. Such an determination may involve evaluating various measurements discussed previously).
For Claim 14, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, further comprising a communication unit configured to transmit the parameter information to the first wireless communication apparatus or a frequency control apparatus configured to control radio wave use of the first wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 5, lines 3-8, that STA devices associated with an AP device may also make measurements related to signal strength on the frequency channel. Such STA devices may then communicate the measurements to the AP device. The AP device may use measurements it obtains on its own and/or measurements obtained by STA devices in selecting a frequency channel).
For Claim 15, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, further comprising a communication unit configured to receive the first request from the first wireless communication apparatus or a frequency control apparatus configured to control radio wave use of the first wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 4, lines 61-65, that an original AP device may send a probe request on a frequency channel, directed at other AP devices operating in the vicinity. Any AP device that receive the probe request may then respond by sending a probe response on the frequency channel).
For Claim 18, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
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 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.
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh Radhakrishnan et al (US 7573857 B1) in view of Jason Edward Butchko (US 20180255469 A1 ).
For Claim 12, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, wherein the processing unit determines a frequency capable of being used by the first wireless communication apparatus on a basis of the information regarding the radio wave interference (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 33-34, that In state 408, the AP device may determine whether the current frequency channel it is using is suitable for continued operation. Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 7, lines 15-18, that the frequency selection process takes into account not only signal strength measurements such as RSSI and SIR, but also the load of neighboring AP devices using the same frequency channel).
Radhakrishnan fails to expressly disclose the installation environment information includes information regarding radio wave interference from the another wireless communication apparatus, which is measured at a time of installation of the first wireless communication apparatus.
However, Butchko in analogous art teaches the installation environment information includes information regarding radio wave interference from the another wireless communication apparatus, which is measured at a time of installation of the first wireless communication apparatus (Butchko teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 7-14, that Each wireless instrument(s) 26, when placed and turned on, analyzes the existing radio environment over a continuous period of time to characterize Wi-Fi interference, congestion and signal reach by analyzing the target spectrum, identifying radio interference, network disturbers, existing radio access points, channel allocation and, signal strengths of a portion of the area 24 within range of the wireless instrument 24). Butchko further teaches, in ¶ 0072, lines 14-17, that The master controller 28 generates an installation and validation report detailing the pre-deployment radio environment, master controller 28 and gateway validation phase.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Radhakrishnan with analyzing the radio-frequency environment taught in Butchko. The motivation is so that an optimal location for the wireless gateway 22, and possibly additional access points to the wireless network [Butchko: ¶ 0065, lines 2-4].
For Claim 13, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, the processing unit determines a frequency capable of being used by the first wireless communication apparatus on a basis of a transmission power value of the another wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 33-34, that In state 408, the AP device may determine whether the current frequency channel it is using is suitable for continued operation. Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 7, lines 15-18, that the frequency selection process takes into account not only signal strength measurements such as RSSI and SIR, but also the load of neighboring AP devices using the same frequency channel).
Radhakrishnan fails to expressly disclose that information regarding the radio wave interference includes an attenuation amount of power of a radio wave transmitted from the another wireless communication apparatus to the first wireless communication apparatus.
However, Butchko in analogous art teaches that information regarding the radio wave interference includes an attenuation amount of power of a radio wave transmitted from the another wireless communication apparatus to the first wireless communication apparatus (Butchko teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 16-22, that an X indicates unacceptable performance at that location for the determined function, e.g., due to interference, congestion and/or signal attenuation. For example, the location is not valid for IEEE 802.11ac, but it valid for IEEE 802.11 b, g and n. In FIG. 7D each wireless instrument(s) 26 is placed at a different location based on its corresponding outer circle based on a maximum RSSI between each other since each wireless instrument(s) 26 is beaconing and may be in each other's scan results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Radhakrishnan with analyzing the radio-frequency environment taught in Butchko. The motivation is so that an optimal location for the wireless gateway 22, and possibly additional access points to the wireless network [Butchko: ¶ 0065, lines 2-4].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh Radhakrishnan et al (US 7573857 B1) in view of Takehiko Shioda et al (US 6484318 B1 ).
For Claim 16, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, wherein the first request includes information regarding a first frequency requested to be used by the first wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 4, lines 61-65, that an original AP device may send a probe request on a frequency channel, directed at other AP devices operating in the vicinity. Any AP device that receive the probe request may then respond by sending a probe response on the frequency channel), and the processing unit determines whether or not the frequency requested in the first request interferes with a second frequency used by the another wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 33-34, that In state 408, the AP device may determine whether the current frequency channel it is using is suitable for continued operation. Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 7, lines 15-18, that the frequency selection process takes into account not only signal strength measurements such as RSSI and SIR, but also the load of neighboring AP devices using the same frequency channel) on a basis of the installation environment information (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 3, lines 32-46, that As shown in FIG. 2, the AP devices of the two floors form a single 802.11 wireless local area network. For example, an AP device 202 having a corresponding cell 204 is deployed on the second floor … a AP device 210 deployed on the first floor and having a corresponding cell 212 may interfere with AP device 202 [deployed on the second floor]), and determines that the first frequency is not capable of being used in a case where the first frequency interferes with the second frequency (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 4, lines 61-65, that in a hotspot situation where a particular AP device is experiencing significantly high loads, neighbor AP devices may avoid the frequency channel used by the heavily loaded AP device. The load of a frequency channel may be used in choosing a new frequency channel).
Radhakrishnan fails to expressly disclose determining that the first frequency is capable of being used in a case where the first frequency does not interfere with the second frequency.
However, Shioda in analogous art teaches determining that the first frequency is capable of being used in a case where the first frequency does not interfere with the second frequency (Shioda teaches, in Col. 4, lines 22-27, that checking a condition of occupancy of the requested upstream channel when receiving the channel get request in the center, assigning the channel to the terminal device which has transmitted the channel get request if the requested channel is unoccupied, and transmitting channel assign data including a designation of the assigned channel to the terminal device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Radhakrishnan with determining the channel-use information taught in Shioda. The motivation is so that the competition or collision of channel get requests can be avoided [Shioda: Col. 14, lines 2-3].
For Claim 17, Radhakrishnan discloses communication control apparatus, wherein in a case where the first frequency interferes with the second frequency, the processing unit determines a third frequency allowed to be used for the first wireless communication apparatus from among usable frequency candidates of the first wireless communication apparatus (Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 4, lines 61-65, that in a hotspot situation where a particular AP device is experiencing significantly high loads, neighbor AP devices may avoid the frequency channel used by the heavily loaded AP device. The load of a frequency channel may be used in choosing a new frequency channel. Radhakrishnan teaches, in Col. 5, lines 24-27, that During such operations, a predetermined condition may be periodically monitored to decide if the AP device needs to exit state 406 to possibly select a new frequency channel).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6-7, 8-11 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations including:
“wherein the processing unit allows the first wireless communication apparatus to use a frequency having an interference relationship with a frequency used by the another wireless communication apparatus in a case where the floor number difference is equal to or greater than a threshold,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited in dependent claim 6.
“wherein the first group includes a plurality of the wireless communication apparatuses installed in a plurality of the buildings, the installation environment information includes information regarding thicknesses of outer walls of a plurality of the buildings, and the processing unit determines a frequency capable of being used by the first wireless communication apparatus on a basis of the thicknesses of the outer walls between the first wireless communication apparatus and the another wireless communication apparatus,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited in dependent claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WANG et al (US 20210195636 A1) teaches a wireless communication device for a base station side comprises a transceiver and one or more processors. The processor is configured to: control, in response to a scheduling request aimed at uplink transmission and sent over a licensed band by a user equipment, the transceiver to inspect a channel in an unlicensed band; control, when the inspected channel is idle, the transceiver to send scheduling information aimed at the channel to the user equipment by means of the licensed band.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412