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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 32 and 46, line 5 of each claim recites the limitation “determining that the second MAC frame length”. However, the limitation seems incomplete. Clarification is needed.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 29, 33, 39, 43, 47 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nabetani et al. (Nabetani), U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0089519.
Regarding claims 29 and 43, Nebetani discloses a method, comprising receiving (at a base station having a processor and a CRM inherently storing instructions that the processor can execute see circuitry in figure 14) first information sent by a second device (wireless terminal) (having a processor and a CRM inherently storing instructions that the processor can execute see circuitry in figure 17), wherein the first information indicates a second media access control (MAC) frame length supported by the second device (inherently indicated within a MAC frame that contains the PHY header and the payload information based on IEEE standard) (the MAC frame (frame) is transmitted and received as communication. More specifically, a physical packet that includes the frame and a physical header (PHY header) added to this frame is transmitted and received) (0036), determining a third MAC frame length based on a first MAC frame length and the second MAC frame length wherein the first MAC frame length is supported by a first device (the third MAC length determined can read on the padding added to the frame when it is determined that length of the data frame is shorter than Tmax)) and communicating with the second device based on the third MAC frame length (In a case where the time length of the data frame generated by terminal 1 is shorter than maximum transmission time length “Tmax”, padding having a length of shortage to the longest time length may be added to the end of the data frame.) (0088) and (the MAC frame (frame) is transmitted and received as communication. More specifically, a physical packet that includes the frame and a physical header (PHY header) added to this frame is transmitted and received) (0036).
Regarding claims 33 and 47, Nabetani discloses the method/device according to claims 29 and 43, the method further comprising: sending second information to the second device, wherein the second information indicates the first MAC frame length supported by the first device, and wherein the second information is used by the second device to determine the third MAC frame length (the third MAC length determined can read on the padding added to the frame when it is determined that length of the data frame is shorter than Tmax)) (In a case where the time length of the data frame generated by terminal 1 is shorter than maximum transmission time length “Tmax”, padding having a length of shortage to the longest time length may be added to the end of the data frame.) (0088).
Regarding claims 39 and 53, Nabetani discloses the method/device according to claims 38 and 53 wherein the first information is carried in a type-length-value (TLV) field in the LLDP information, a preamble, or a code block in the PCS information (FIG. 2B shows a configuration example of a physical packet. “SIGNAL” field, and “Preamble” field which is other than the legacy preamble, are arranged after “L-SIG” field. Information for notification to the terminal is set in “SIGNAL” field in conformity with the standard used therefor. The information to be notified to the terminal may contain, for example, information on MCS applied to the frame for the payload. Information for channel estimation, reception power measurement, or frequency correction may be set in this other “Preamble” field.) (0039).
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.
Claim(s) 30-32, 36, 38, 44-46, 50 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabetani in view of well-known prior art.
Regarding claims 30 and 44, Nabetani discloses the method/device according to claims 29 and 43 as described above. Nabetani, however, fails to disclose, wherein the first MAC frame length, the second MAC frame length, and the third MAC frame length each are a minimum MAC frame length and wherein the minimum MAC frame length comprises a minimum length for transmitting a MAC frame; or wherein the first MAC frame length, the second MAC frame length, and the third MAC frame length each are a maximum MAC frame length, and wherein the maximum MAC frame length comprises a maximum length for transmitting a MAC frame.
The examiner contends, however, that the IEEE standard for the MAC frame length has a set minimum (96 bytes) and maximum (1518 bytes) MAC frame length. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nabetani wherein the frame lengths would be the minimum or maximum MAC frame length allowed. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 31 and 45, Nabetani discloses the method/device according to claims 29 and 43 as described above. Nabetani, however, fails to disclose, wherein determining the third MAC frame length based on the first MAC frame length and the second MAC frame length comprises: determining that the first MAC length is the third MAC frame length, and the first MAC frame length is greater than or equal to the second MAC frame length.
The examiner contends, however, that because the MAC frame lengths in Nabetani can be modified based on padding as described above, the MAC length frames can be adjusted and thereby determined based on system preference.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nabetani wherein the frame lengths would be equal to or greater than each other. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 32 and 46, Nabetani discloses the method/device according to claims 29 and 43 as described above. Nabetani, however, fails to disclose wherein determining the third MAC frame length based on the first MAC frame length and the second MAC frame length comprises: determining that the third MAC frame length is greater than or equal to the first MAC frame length; determining that the second MAC frame length; and determining that the third MAC frame length is less than 64 bytes.
The examiner contends, however, that because the MAC frame lengths in Nabetani can be modified based on padding as described above, the MAC length frames can be adjusted and thereby determined based on system preference.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nabetani wherein the frame lengths would be equal to or greater than each other. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 36 and 50, Nabetani discloses the method/device according to claims 29 and 43 as described above. Nabetani, however, fails to disclose the method/device further comprising: receiving a third data frame; and in response to a length of the third data frame being less than the third MAC frame length, discarding the third data frame, wherein the third MAC frame length is less than 64 bytes.
Nabetani does disclose, however, a method for error correction using Frame Check Sequence information on received information (FCS (Frame Check Sequence) information is set in the FCS field as a checksum code used in frame error detection at the receiving side.) (0045).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nabetani to receive a third data frame; and in response to a length of the third data frame being less than the third MAC frame length, discarding the third data frame, wherein the third MAC frame length is less than 64 bytes since discarding unwanted data is a well-known technique used in error correction. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 38 and 52, Nabetani discloses the method/device according to claims 29 and 43 as described above. Nabetani, however, fails to disclose wherein the first information comprises link layer discovery protocol (LLDP) information or physical coding sublayer (PCS) information.
The examiner contends, however, that link layer discovery protocol (LLDP) information and physical coding sublayer (PCS) information is well-known in the art and the examiner takes official notice as such.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nabetani with link layer discovery protocol (LLDP) information and physical coding sublayer (PCS) information as described. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 40 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabetani.
Regarding claims 40 and 54, Nabetani discloses the method/device according to claims 29 and 43 as described above. Nabetani, however, fails to disclose the method further comprising: sending third information to a third device based on the third MAC frame length, wherein the third information is used by the third device to determine a MAC frame length used in communication with the first device.
The examiner contends, however, that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nabetani to send third information to a third device based on the third MAC frame length, wherein the third information is used by a third device to determine a MAC frame length used in communication with the first device, as such a technique is a design choice, as the technique is redundant and can be performed in the same manner described in claims 29 and 43 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34, 35, 37, 48, 49 and 51 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:
Regarding claims 34 and 38, the closest prior art of record, Nabetani fails to suggest or render obvious obtaining first data, and wherein communicating with the second device based on the third MAC frame length comprises: in response to the first data satisfying a first condition: performing non-padding encapsulation on the first data to obtain a first data frame; and sending the first data frame to the second device, wherein a length of the first data frame is greater than or equal to the third MAC frame length, wherein the third MAC frame length is less than 64 bytes, and wherein the first condition comprises: the length of the first data is greater than or equal to a value obtained by subtracting an encapsulation length of the first data frame from the third MAC frame length.
Regarding claims 35 and 49, they are indicated allowable based on their dependence from claims 34 and 48, respectively.
Regarding claims 37 and 51, the closest prior art of record, Nabetani, fails to suggest or render obvious a method further comprising: in response to the length of the third data frame is greater than 64 bytes, or in response to the length of the third data frame being less than 64 bytes and greater than or equal to the third MAC frame length: receiving the third data frame.
Claims 41, 42, 55 and 56 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 41, the closest prior art of record, Nabetani fails to suggest or render obvious, taken individually or collectively, as claimed as a whole a method, comprising: obtaining, by a first device, first data; and in response to the first data satisfying a first condition: performing, by the first device, non-padding encapsulation on the first data to obtain a first data frame; and sending the first data frame to a second device, wherein the first condition comprises: a length of the first data is greater than or equal to a value obtained by subtracting an encapsulation length of the first data frame from a minimum MAC frame length, and the minimum MAC frame length is less than 64 bytes, as explicitly described.
Regarding claims 42 and 56, they are indicated allowable based on their dependence from claims 41 and 55, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0070670, discloses integrity protection with message authentication codes having different lengths.
Lee et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0261724, discloses support for additional decoding processing time in a WLAN system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMICA M. BEAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/TEMICA M BEAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646