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, see the amendment and remarks, filed 3/31/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-25 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered art.
Applicant’s arguments regard the new amendment that Abedini does not expressly disclose the newly amended limitation (Pp. 2-4) nor the elements in the newly added claims 60-64. Upon review, the examiner has decided to stipulate under the idea that the art does not expressly recite the particular elements. However, such elements were found in relevant art with motivation to be added. This action is final because there has been a change in the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it may consist of software per se. The claim recites instructions on “computer readable storage hardware” that may be executed on a machine, rather than a machine that stores and executes instructions. Appropriate amendment is required.
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) 1-7, 9-10, 14-20, 22-23, 60, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini et al. (12,431,996) in view of Hausten et al. (2023/0,189,382).
For claims 1, 14, 60, Abedini teaches a method and system (abstract, background, summary and claims; col. 3, line 55 - col. 7, line 15) comprising:
receiving input indicating a quality (col. 12, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 30-45) of a wireless communication link (col. 7, lines 15-35) between a first wireless station (col. 10, lines 5-15) and a second wireless station (col. 7, lines 35-55); and
based on detected degradation (col. 23, lines 45-60) of the quality of the wireless communication link as indicated by the input (col. 12, line 35-col. 13, line 10), implementing a repetition mode (col. 12, lines 20-35) of repeatedly transmitting data from the first wireless station to the second wireless station (col. 18, lines 45-60).
Abedini does not expressly disclose implementing a repetition mode of repeatedly transmitting data over the wireless communication link from the first wireless station to the second wireless station. Hausten teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes implementing a repetition mode (Paras 604-605) of repeatedly transmitting data (Para 113) over the wireless communication link Paras 131-133) from the first wireless station to the second wireless station (Paras 172 and 473). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Hausten in order to provide improvements to detecting the link degrading event and location (Paras 71-77).
For claims 2, 15, Abedini teaches that receiving the input from the second wireless station, the input notifying the first wireless station to operate in the repetition mode (col. 18, lines 25-45).
For claims 3, 16, Abedini teaches producing the input at the first wireless station in response to an inability of the second wireless station to receive wireless signals from the first wireless station above a wireless power level (col. 21, lines 10-45).
For claims 4, 17, Abedini teaches that the implemented repetition mode of repeatedly transmitting the data from the first wireless station to the second wireless station increases a wireless transmit range of the first wireless station (col. 15, lines 15-35).
For claims 5, 18, Abedini teaches implementing the repetition mode includes repeating transmission of the data over the wireless communication link in the time domain (col. 16, lines 25-55).
For claims 6, 19, Abedini teaches wherein the repeated transmission of the data in the time domain includes:
in a first time duration, transmitting a first instance of the data over the wireless communication link from the first wireless station to the second wireless station (col. 16, line 55 - col. 17, line 15); and
in a second time duration following the first time duration, transmitting a second instance of the data over the wireless communication link from the first wireless station to the second wireless station, wherein the second instance of the data is a replica of the first instance of the data (col. 20, lines 10-45).
For claims 7, 20, Abedini teaches wherein the first instance of the data is transmitted over a first wireless bandwidth (col 13, lines 20-50);
wherein the second instance of the data is transmitted over the first wireless bandwidth (col. 13, line 50 - col. 14, line 40); and
wherein the first time duration and the second time duration reside within a single acquisition of the first wireless bandwidth by the first wireless station (col 14, line 40 - col. 15, line 15).
For claims 9, 22, Abedini teaches wherein implementing the repetition mode includes repeating transmission of the data from the first wireless station over the wireless communication link in the frequency domain (col. 16, lines 25-55).
For claims 10, 23, Abedini teaches wherein repeating transmission of the data in the frequency domain includes:
via a first wireless carrier frequency, transmitting a first instance of the data over the wireless communication link from the first wireless station to the second wireless station (col. 16, line 55 - col. 17, line 15); and
via a second wireless carrier frequency different than the first wireless carrier frequency, transmitting a second instance of the data over the wireless communication link from the first wireless station to the second wireless station (col. 20, lines 10-45).
For claim 64, Hausten teaches wherein operation of the repetition mode includes the second wireless station implementing coherent combining function to reproduce a rendition of the data transmitted over the wireless communication link from the first wireless station to the second wireless station (Paras 114-120).
Claim(s) 8, 21, 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini and Hausten as applied to claims 6, 19 above, and further in view of Bennett et al. (11,671,926).
For claims 8, 21, Abedini does not expressly disclose the details of instances over wireless bandwidth. Bennett teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims; col. 5, line 35 - col. 12, line 60)) where the first instance of the data is transmitted over a first wireless bandwidth (col. 32, lines 20-40);
wherein the second instance of the data is transmitted over the first wireless bandwidth (col. 33, lines 35-60);
wherein the first time duration resides within a first acquisition of the first wireless bandwidth by the first wireless station (col. 34, lines 15-40); and
wherein the second time duration resides within a second acquisition of the first wireless bandwidth by the first wireless station (col. 34, lines 15-40).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Bennett in order to provide improvements in power signal management (col. 1, lines 20-40).
For claim 61, Bennett teaches that the degradation of the quality of the wireless communication link is detected based on a reduction in a wireless signal strength of the second wireless station receiving wireless signals from the first wireless station over the wireless communication link (col. 15, line 40 – col. 16, line 20).
Claim(s) 11, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini and Hausten as applied to claims 1, 14 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (2023/0,014,328).
For claims 11, 24, Abedini does not expressly disclose the elements being taught. Sun teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes transmitting a repetition settings notification from the first wireless station to the second wireless station (Paras 142-144), the repetition settings notification specifying how many instances (Para 140-141) in which the data is scheduled to be repeatedly transmitted (Para 136) from the first wireless station to the second wireless station via the repetition mode (Para 122, 130-131). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Sun in order to provide improvements to transmission reliability (Para 2).
Claim(s) 12, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini and Hausten as applied to claims 1, 14 above, and further in view of Gollamudi et al. (2025/0,113,297).
For claims 12, 25, Abedini does not expressly disclose the limitations. Gollamudi teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims; Paras 22-31) including that the repetition settings notification indicates that the first wireless station is configured to repeat transmission of the data (Paras 51, 70) in a single TXOP (Transmit Opportunity) acquired by the first wireless station (Paras 45-50). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Gollamudi in order to provide improvements to power consumption (Para 28).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini and Hausten as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (12,245,255).
For claims 13, Abedini does not expressly disclose the limitations. Wang teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims; col. 3, line 45 - col. 7, line 30) including the repetition settings notification indicates that the first wireless station is configured to repeat transmission of the data over multiple TXOPs (Transmit Opportunities) acquired by the first wireless station (col. 11, line 60 - col. 12, line 20). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Wang in order to provide improvements to band connectivity (col. 1, lines 25-40).
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini and Hausten as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sohrabi et al. (12,587,330).
For claim 62, Abedini and Hausten do not expressly disclose the limitations. Sohrabi teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) wherein implementing the repetition mode includes:
implementing a listen before talk function to acquire a wireless channel to transmit over the wireless communication link (col. 31, lines 25-45); and
transmitting a first instance of the data and a second instance of the data in the repetition mode over the wireless communication link using the acquired wireless channel (col. 22, lines 35-50).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Sohrabi in order to provide improvements to handling wireless systems (col. 12, lines 1-65).
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini and Hausten as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (2025/0,080,286).
For claim 63, Abedini and Hausten do not expressly disclose the elements. Yi teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant environment (background, summary and claims) further comprising: at the first wireless station, receiving a notification from the second wireless station, the notification notifying the first wireless station to discontinue operation of the first wireless station in the repetition mode (Paras 142-145), the notification transmitted by the second wireless station in response to the second wireless station being able to individually receive and decode a first instance of the data transmitted from the first wireless station and a second instance of the data transmitted from the first wireless station without using a signal combining technique (Paras 172-173). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Yi in order to provide improvements to the transmission systems (Paras 5-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights