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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1-5, 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0232452, Li hereafter, cited in IDS filed July 31, 2024) in view of Cariou et al. (US 2017/0325222, Cariou hereafter).
RE claims 1, 10 and 16, Li discloses a method, access point and non-transitory computer-readable medium for transmitting and receiving in a secondary channel when a primary channel is active, the access point comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing an application configured to, when executed by the processor, perform an operation, the operation comprising: enabling activity over the secondary channel of a basic service set (BSS) operating in a wireless medium when the primary channel of the BSS is active (Paragraphs 131-132 and 135-136); determining that the primary channel is active; upon determining that the primary channel is active, transmitting an RTS frame over the secondary channel to reserve the secondary channel for a specified duration and receive a CTS frame in the secondary channel in response to the RTS frame (Paragraphs 131-132 and 135-136); and transmitting data over the secondary channel (Paragraph 115, 131-132 and 135-136).
Li does not explicitly disclose determining that the primary channel is active only after receiving a CTS frame in the primary channel.
However, Cariou teaches determining that the primary channel is active only after receiving a CTS frame in the primary channel (Paragraph 50, a device determines a first designated channel is busy through Clear Channel Assessment in which the device overhears an RTS or CTS on the channel and sets the channel as busy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, access point and medium of Li with the teachings of Cariou since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 2, Li in view of Cariou discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Li further discloses wherein determining that the primary channel is active includes waiting for a receiver connected to the primary channel to decode a medium access layer (MAC) header of a frame transmitted over the primary channel by sending an RTS frame (Paragraph 148).
RE claim 3, Li in view of Cariou discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Li further discloses wherein determining that the primary channel is active includes waiting for the CTS frame in the primary channel from the receiver after sending an RTS frame to the receiver (Paragraphs 148 and 150, CTS/RTS use to determine if the medium is idle).
RE claim 4, Li in view of Cariou discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Li further discloses wherein the primary channel has a center frequency, wherein the secondary channel is an aggregation of channels within a bandwidth of the BSS, and wherein the aggregation of channels includes channels having center frequencies less than or greater than the center frequency of the primary channel and excludes the primary channel (Paragraph 146 and Figure 3B, primary channel and a plurality of secondary channels formed by an aggregation of 20 MHz channels. “it is not allowed to initiate contention by using a temporary primary channel on sub-channels actually occupied by an OBSS frame, and contention may be initiated by using a temporary primary channel on all other sub-channels on which no preamble puncture is performed.” It is inherent in the art for these channels to have a center frequency.)
RE claim 5, Li in view of Cariou discloses the method of claim 4 as set forth above. Note that Li further discloses wherein the secondary channel has a center frequency that has a maximum frequency separation from the center frequency of the primary channel (Paragraph 146, “:"a full bandwidth of the first OBSS frame is 160 MHz" . Thus, a maximum separation between the primary channel and secondary channel center frequencies is 160 MHz.)
RE claims 11 and 17, Li in view of Cariou discloses the access point of claim 10 and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Li further discloses wherein the primary channel has a center frequency, wherein the secondary channel is an aggregation of channels within a bandwidth of the BSS, wherein the aggregation of channels includes channels having center frequencies less than or greater than the center frequency of the primary channel and excludes the primary channel (Paragraph 146 and Figure 3B, primary channel and a plurality of secondary channels formed by an aggregation of 20 MHz channels. “it is not allowed to initiate contention by using a temporary primary channel on sub-channels actually occupied by an OBSS frame, and contention may be initiated by using a temporary primary channel on all other sub-channels on which no preamble puncture is performed.” It is inherent in the art for these channels to have a center frequency.), and wherein the secondary channel has a center frequency that has a maximum frequency separation from the center frequency of the primary channel (Paragraph 146, “:"a full bandwidth of the first OBSS frame is 160 MHz" . Thus, a maximum separation between the primary channel and secondary channel center frequencies is 160 MHz.).
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cariou and further in view of Noh et al. (US 2023/0061723, Noh hereafter, cited in IDS filed July 31, 2024).
RE claims 6, 12 and 18, Li in view of Cariou discloses the method of claim 1, access point of claim 12 and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 as set forth above. Li in view of Cariou does not explicitly disclose wherein a bitmap available to the BSS defines inactive channels within a bandwidth of the BSS, a lowest numbered bit in the bitmap corresponding to a channel having a lowest center frequency of channels in the bandwidth of the BSS; further comprising selecting a secondary channel for use based on the bitmap.
However, Noh teaches wherein a bitmap available to the BSS defines inactive channels within a bandwidth of the BSS, a lowest numbered bit in the bitmap corresponding to a channel having a lowest center frequency of channels in the bandwidth of the BSS; further comprising selecting a secondary channel for use based on the bitmap (Paragraph 107 teaches "The Disabled Subchannel Bitmap subfield 1006-4 is a 16-bit bitmap where the lowest numbered bit corresponds to the 20 MHz subchannel that lies within the BSS bandwidth and that has the lowest frequency of the set of all 20 MHz subchannels within the BSS bandwidth. Each successive bit in the bitmap corresponds to the next higher frequency 20 MHz subchannel. A bit in the bitmap is set to 1 to indicate that the corresponding 20 MHz subchannel is punctured and is set to 0 to indicate that the corresponding 20 MHz subchannel is not punctured.".)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, access point and medium of Li in view of Cariou with the teachings of Noh since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 7-9, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cariou and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2022/0418018, Jang hereafter, cited in IDS filed July 31, 2024).
RE claims 7, 13 and 19, Li in view of Cariou discloses the method of claim 1, access point of claim 12 and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 as set forth above. Li in view of Cariou does not explicitly disclose wherein the primary channel is active with a transmission opportunity (TXOP) and then with a block acknowledgment (BA) frame, and wherein the BA frame contains a NAV value that is checked to determine whether a TXOP in the primary channel is reserved after the TXOP.
However, Jang teaches wherein the primary channel is active with a transmission opportunity (TXOP) and then with a block acknowledgment (BA) frame, and wherein the BA frame contains a NAV value that is checked to determine whether a TXOP in the primary channel is reserved after the TXOP (Paragraph 381: 381, "Non-STR BA may have a fixed type or a dynamic type. Here, the additional information may be, for example, information related to NAV.").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, access point and medium of Li in view of Cariou with the teachings of Jang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 8 and 14, Li in view of Cariou and further in view of Jang discloses the method of claim 7 and access point of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Jang further teaches wherein the NAV value includes a bit per frame in the TXOP to indicate a duration that the primary channel is active (Paragraph 390, "FIG. 34 shows an example in which BA is always used as a non-STR BA during TXOP even if NAV 1 and NAV 3 are finished before TXOP. Since it knows that there is NAV 2 after the TXOP, STA 2 sets the NAV until the end of NAV 2.").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, access point and medium of Li in view of Cariou with the teachings of Jang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 9 and 15, Li in view of Cariou and further in view of Jang discloses the method of claim, 7 and access point of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Jang further teaches wherein a maximum TXOP size is divided into time slots per channel and control frames provide status of each time slot (Paragraph 383 teaches a BA is a block acknowledgement that provides acknowledgement information per frame, thus it is indicated which frame is positively and which negatively acknowledged).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, access point and medium of Li in view of Cariou with the teachings of Jang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may 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:
RE claim 21, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest wherein transmitted the RTS frame over the secondary channel is performed only after determining that the received power is less than the threshold and greater than at least one of the preamble detection or the default energy detection threshold.
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 James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461