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 .
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 04/24/2023, 04/23/2024, 10/10/2024, 12/16/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 4, 5 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.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US-20140105131) in view of Patil (US-20200288523), Stacey (WO-2018232138-A1).
As to claim 1, 10, 11: Chu teaches a communication apparatus capable of establishing a connection with other one communication apparatus via a first frequency channel and a second frequency channel, the communication apparatus comprising: a first transmission unit configured to transmit a beacon frame at predetermined transmission intervals ([0004] Such a beacon may be transmitted by the access point on a periodic basis); and a second transmission unit configured to transmit a FILS discovery frame or an unsolicited probe response frame at predetermined transmission intervals shorter than when the beacon frame is transmitted ([0008] Wireless stations discover an access point by detecting a FILS discovery beacon transmitted repeatedly from the access point at shorter or faster subsequent time intervals (e.g., higher frequency) than a typical beacon) … and the FILS discovery frame or the unsolicited probe response frame transmitted using the first frequency channel by the second transmission unit does not include the information ([0008] Wireless stations discover an access point by detecting a FILS discovery beacon transmitted repeatedly from the access point at shorter or faster subsequent time intervals (e.g., higher frequency) than a typical beacon).
Chu may not explicitly teach wherein in a case where a connection is established with the other one communication apparatus via the first frequency channel and the second frequency channel. However, Patil teaches wherein in a case where a connection is established with the other one communication apparatus via the first frequency channel and the second frequency channel (abstract, [0007] multi-link session; [0166] In some cases, the TIM element may include an indicator that one or more non-AP STAB may be serviced on the first wireless link, or the second wireless link, or a combination thereof. A TIM signal may include a frame carrying a TIM element such as a Beacon frame, TIM frame, FILS Discovery (FD) frame).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multi-link sessions, taught by Patil, into the communication system, taught by Chu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and increase bandwidth. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chu and Patil in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Chu may not explicitly teach the beacon frame transmitted using the first frequency channel (2.4/5 GHz) by the first transmission unit includes information for communication using the second frequency channel. However, Stacey teaches the beacon frame transmitted using the first frequency channel (2.4/5 GHz) by the first transmission unit includes information for communication using the second frequency channel ([0153] The 6 GHz HE STA 505 may wait for a beacon from 6 GHz HE AP 503.2 (which may be transmitted on the 2.4/5 GHz band 1040.2 or the 6 GHz band 1040.1). The 6 GHz HE STA 505 may then determine based on information in the beacon, e.g., 6 GHz HE field 1222, HE field 1218, whether to transmit an association request 1026).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement signaling using different frequencies, taught by Stacey, into the communication system, taught by Chu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine … and … in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US-20140105131), Patil (US-20200288523), Stacey (WO-2018232138-A1) in view of Cherian (US-20190098565).
As to claim 2: Chu teaches the communication apparatus according to Claim 1.
Chu may not explicitly teach further comprising a determination unit configured to determine a communication load between the communication apparatus and the other one communication apparatus in a case where the connection is established with the other one communication apparatus via the first frequency channel and the second frequency channel, wherein in a case where the determination unit determines that the communication load is high, the beacon frame transmitted using the first frequency channel by the first transmission unit includes information for communication using the second frequency channel, and the FILS discovery frame or the unsolicited probe response frame transmitted using the first frequency channel by the second transmission unit does not include the information. However, Cherian teaches further comprising a determination unit configured to determine a communication load between the communication apparatus and the other one communication apparatus in a case where the connection is established with the other one communication apparatus via the first frequency channel and the second frequency channel, wherein in a case where the determination unit determines that the communication load is high ([0050, 51] increased overhead, limiting uncontrolled communications on a frequency channel by STAs and APs may be desired), the beacon frame transmitted using the first frequency channel by the first transmission unit includes information for communication using the second frequency channel ([0057, 62] In some aspects, a first frequency channel(s) (e.g., the 2.4 GHz/5 GHz channels) may be used for discovery of a second frequency channel(s) (e.g., the 6 GHz channel)), and the FILS discovery frame or the unsolicited probe response frame transmitted using the first frequency channel by the second transmission unit does not include the information ([0056] The FILS discovery frame may include less information than a general beacon frame).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determine communication load, taught by Cherian, into the communication system, taught by Chu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Cherian and Chu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US-20140105131), Patil (US-20200288523), Stacey (WO-2018232138-A1) in view of Lee (US-20160219591).
As to claim 6: Chu teaches the communication apparatus according to Claim 1.
Chu may not explicitly teach wherein the information is included in an RNR (Reduced Neighbor Report) element of the beacon frame. However, Lee teaches wherein the information is included in an RNR (Reduced Neighbor Report) element of the beacon frame ([0091, 93]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement RNR, taught by Lee, into the communication system, taught by Chu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide signaling information. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Chu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US-20140105131) in view of Patil (US-20200288523), Stacey (WO-2018232138-A1).
As to claim 7: Chu teaches the communication apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the FILS discovery frame or the unsolicited probe response frame or the beacon frame includes information on a network constructed by a communication apparatus that transmits the frame (abstract The FILS discovery frame includes a data field populated with an identification of a channel number for that primary channel of the wireless network access point).
As to claim 8: Chu teaches the communication apparatus according to Claim 1.
Chu may not explicitly teach wherein the first frequency channel and the second frequency channel are each one of channels of the 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz bands. However, Patil teaches wherein the first frequency channel and the second frequency channel are each one of channels of the 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz bands ([0086]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement different frequencies, taught by Patil, into the communication system, taught by Chu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and increase bandwidth. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Patil and Chu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 9: Chu teaches the communication apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the communication apparatus operates as an AP (Access Point) according to IEEE 802.11 series standards ([0002, 12, 23]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466