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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirotkin (US 2018/0227828) in view of Kneckt (US 2022/0408349) and Zhou (US 2015/0245280)
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, Sirotkin teaches a device (figure 1, see specifically #102), the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage (figure 1, see specifically #152, #151 and #155), the processing circuitry configured to:
discover an access point (AP) (¶ [0126], see specifically passively scan to identify a WLAN AP);
identify a regulatory information subfield of a received frame from the discovered AP (¶ [0126], see specifically AP Beacon); and
determine a mode of operation of the AP by interpreting a value within the regulatory information subfield (¶ [0116] – [0125], see specifically the regulatory restrictions); and
adjust one or more communication parameters based on the determined mode of operation of the AP (¶ [0116] – [0125], see specifically the regulatory restrictions.)
Sirotkin fails to explicitly teach the access point (AP) operating in a six gigahertz band, and the mode of operation being an in-vehicle mode.
Kneckt from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the access point (AP) operating in a six gigahertz band (¶ [0240], see specifically 6GHZ.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use a device on the 6GHZ band in the system of Sirotkin as taught by Kneckt.
The motivation is that the 6GHZ band has now been made available for WiFi and to coordinate frequencies within the new band to better utilize the new band as it increases performance.
Zhou from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the mode of operation being an in-vehicle mode (¶ [0118], see specifically dedicated beacon including an onboard indicator).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have an onboard mode in the system of Sirotkin as taught by Kneckt.
The motivation is provided within Zhou in ¶ [0119], it allows the station to better determine that the access point is onboard the same vehicle that the UE is.
Regarding Claim 2, 10 and 18, Sirotkin teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to classify the mode of operation of the AP as one of a low power indoor mode, an in-vehicle mode, or a mobile standard power mode (¶ [0119], see specifically indoor, ¶ [0120], see specifically outdoor, ¶ [0121], see specifically power.)
Regarding Claim 3, 11 and 19, Sirotkin teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to adjust a power level based on the determined mode of operation of the AP (¶ [0119], see specifically indoor, ¶ [0120], see specifically outdoor, ¶ [0121], see specifically power.)
Regarding Claim 4, 12 and 20, Sirotkin teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit a signal to the AP based on the adjusted one or more communication parameters of the device (¶ [0112], bands may be restricted.)
Regarding Claim 5, 13 and 21, Sirotkin teaches the the processing circuitry is further configured to periodically check for changes in the mode of operation of the AP (¶ [0126], see specifically required to passively scan.)
Regarding Claim 7, 15 and 23, Sirotkin fails to explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to request an Automatic Frequency Coordination (AFC) system for available frequencies in case the determined mode of operation of the AP is a mobile standard power mode.
Kneckt from the same or similar field of endeavor the processing circuitry is further configured to request an Automatic Frequency Coordination (AFC) system for available frequencies in case the determined mode of operation of the AP is a mobile standard power mode (¶ [0263], see specifically AFC.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use a device on the 6GHZ band in the system of Sirotkin as taught by Kneckt.
The motivation is that the 6GHZ band has now been made available for WiFi and to coordinate frequencies within the new band to better utilize the new band as it increases performance.
Regarding Claim 8, 16 and 24, Sirotkin fails to explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to select a frequency channel for transmission based on the frequencies provided by the AFC system.
Kneckt from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to select a frequency channel for transmission based on the frequencies provided by the AFC system (¶ [0263], see specifically AFC.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use a device on the 6GHZ band in the system of Sirotkin as taught by Kneckt.
The motivation is that the 6GHZ band has now been made available for WiFi and to coordinate frequencies within the new band to better utilize the new band as it increases performance.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirotkin (US 2018/0227828) in view of Kneckt (US 2022/0408349) and Zhou (US 2015/0245280) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2022/0256590)
Regarding Claim 6, 14 and 22, Sirotkin fails to explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to enter a power-saving mode if the determined mode of operation of the AP is a low power indoor mode.
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to enter a power-saving mode if the determined mode of operation of the AP is a low power indoor mode (¶ [0102], see specifically low power mode)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to operate on a lower power mode in the system of Sirotkin as taught by Zhang.
The motivation is that it reduces the power consumption for the mobile terminal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 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.
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 ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights