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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 January 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 22 January 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 22 January 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2-3 and 18-19 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 Claim 2 and Claim 18, said claims recite “a frame” and “the frame” which render the claim unclear because the recitation of “frame” can be confused with “a management frame” or “a control frame”. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “a management response frame” or another recitation that does not recite only the term “frame”.
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 19, Claim 3 and Claim 19 are rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 2 and rejected Claim 18 respectively.
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 AIA 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 –
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
Claims 1, 6, 12, 16, 17, 20, 25, and 29-30 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US 20190215884 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Patil”).
Regarding Claim 1, Patil discloses a non-access point (AP) station (STA), comprising:
a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (¶307-312 & Fig. 21, Patil discloses a station (STA) comprising a processor 2120 and memory 2125 that stores software 2130), the processing system configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
receive a management frame (¶199-200 & Fig. 7 (710), Patil discloses receiving, by the STA from an access point (AP), a target wakeup time (TWT) response. Examiner correlates the TWT response to “a management frame”) indicating one or more anchor channels within an operating bandwidth of an AP STA (¶199-200 & Fig. 7 (710), Patil discloses that the TWT) response is configured to be received on a primary channel. Here, the reception on the primary channel of the TWT response is the indication of the primary channel acting as an anchor channel) for dynamic subchannel operation (¶7, Patil discloses that the reception of the TWP response is to support secondary channel operation. Examiner correlates secondary channel operation to “dynamic subchannel operation”);
receive a control frame (¶202 & Fig. 7 (715), Patil discloses receiving, by the STA from the AP, a trigger frame. Examiner correlates the trigger frame to “a control frame” because the trigger frame comprises control information) assigning, to the non-AP STA for the dynamic subchannel operation, one or more frequency resources included in one or more secondary subchannels (¶202 & Fig. 7 (715), Patil discloses that the trigger frame assigns at least one resource unit (RU) corresponding to a secondary channel) associated with an anchor channel of the one or more anchor channels (¶165 & Fig. 2B, Patil discloses that the secondary channels are associated with the primary channel); and
communicate via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel (¶203 & Fig. 7 (720), Patil discloses communicating by exchanging, via at least one indicated secondary channel associated with the primary channel, frames between the STA and the AP) based at least in part on an enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode at the non-AP STA (¶199-203 & Fig. 7 (710->715->720), Patil discloses that the exchange is based upon whether the TWT Response enabled secondary channel access).
Regarding Claim 6, Patil discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
Patil further discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
transmit a frame (¶197-198 & Fig. 7 (705), Patil discloses transmitting TWT request frame) indicating a capability to operate in a dynamic subchannel operation mode for a link (¶197-198 & Fig. 7 (705), Patil discloses that the TWT request frame indicates a preference for a secondary 80MHz channel), wherein the receiving the management frame indicating the one or more anchor channels within the operating bandwidth of the AP STA for the dynamic subchannel operation is based at least in part on the capability to operate in the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the link (¶197-200 & Fig. 7 (705->710), Patil discloses that the reception of the TWT response frame is based at least in part on the capability, or preference, of the STA to operate in secondary channel access mode for at least one primary channel and at least one secondary channel between the STA and the AP).
Regarding Claim 12, Patil discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
Patil further discloses the control frame comprises a dynamic subchannel operation announcement frame (¶202 & Fig. 7 (715), Patil discloses that the trigger frame announces the secondary channel access. Examiner correlates the trigger frame to “a dynamic subchannel operation announcement frame”).
Regarding Claim 16, Patil discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
Patil further discloses the anchor channel spans a 20 Megahertz bandwidth (¶4, Patil discloses that each channel may span 20 MHz in frequency).
Regarding Claim 17, Patil discloses an access point (AP) station (STA), comprising:
a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (¶376-381 & Fig. 29, Patil discloses an access point (AP) comprising a processor 2920 and memory 2925 that stores software 2930), the processing system configured to cause the AP STA to:
transmit a management frame (¶199-200 & Fig. 7 (710), Patil discloses transmitting, by the AP to a station (STA), a target wakeup time (TWT) response. Examiner correlates the TWT response to “a management frame”) indicating one or more anchor channels within an operating bandwidth of the AP STA (¶199-200 & Fig. 7 (710), Patil discloses that the TWT) response is configured to be received on a primary channel. Here, the reception on the primary channel of the TWT response is the indication of the primary channel acting as an anchor channel) for dynamic subchannel operation (¶7, Patil discloses that the reception of the TWP response is to support secondary channel operation. Examiner correlates secondary channel operation to “dynamic subchannel operation”);
transmit a control frame (¶202 & Fig. 7 (715), Patil discloses transmitting, by the AP to the STA, a trigger frame. Examiner correlates the trigger frame to “a control frame” because the trigger frame comprises control information) assigning, to a non-AP STA for the dynamic subchannel operation, one or more frequency resources included in one or more secondary subchannels (¶202 & Fig. 7 (715), Patil discloses that the trigger frame assigns at least one resource unit (RU) corresponding to a secondary channel) associated with an anchor channel of the one or more anchor channels (¶165 & Fig. 2B, Patil discloses that the secondary channels are associated with the primary channel); and
communicate with the non-AP STA via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel (¶203 & Fig. 7 (720), Patil discloses communicating by exchanging, via at least one indicated secondary channel associated with the primary channel, frames between the STA and the AP) based at least in part on the control frame (¶199-203 & Fig. 7 (710->715->720), Patil discloses that the exchange is based upon whether the TWT Response enabled secondary channel access).
Regarding Claim 20, Patil discloses the AP STA of claim 17.
Patil further discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the AP STA to:
receive a frame (¶197-198 & Fig. 7 (705), Patil discloses transmitting TWT request frame) indicating a capability of the non-AP STA to operate in a dynamic subchannel operation mode for a link (¶197-198 & Fig. 7 (705), Patil discloses that the TWT request frame indicates a preference for a secondary 80MHz channel access), wherein the transmitting the management frame indicating the one or more anchor channels within the operating bandwidth of the AP STA for the dynamic subchannel operation is based at least in part on the capability of the non-AP STA to operate in the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the link (¶197-200 & Fig. 7 (705->710), Patil discloses that the reception of the TWT response frame is based at least in part on the capability, or preference, of the STA to operate in secondary channel access mode for at least one primary channel and at least one secondary channel between the STA and the AP).
Regarding Claim 25, Patil discloses the AP STA of claim 17.
Patil further discloses the control frame comprises a dynamic subchannel operation announcement frame (¶202 & Fig. 7 (715), Patil discloses that the trigger frame announces the secondary channel access. Examiner correlates the trigger frame to “a dynamic subchannel operation announcement frame”).
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
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 AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 7-8, 11, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Lu et al. (US 20250379711 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Lu”).
Regarding Claim 5, Patil discloses the non-AP STA of claim 4.
However, Patil does not disclose wherein, to operate according to the same bandwidth capability, the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to: operate according to a reduced bandwidth narrower than the same bandwidth capability based at least in part on an operating mode of the non-AP STA.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches to operate according to a reduced bandwidth narrower than the same bandwidth capability based at least in part on an operating mode of the non-AP STA (¶275-280 & Fig. 13, Lu discloses operating, by a non-AP STA, in dynamic subchannel operation according to a reduced bandwidth of 40 MHz where the reduced bandwidth is narrower than the operating bandwidth of 80 MHz corresponding to the non-AP STA. Fig. 13 shows that the non-AP STA is at least capable of a maximum operating bandwidth of 60 MHz but the non-AP STA only does a frame exchange under DSO using 40 MHz).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil by operating according to a reduced bandwidth narrower than the same bandwidth capability based at least in part on an operating mode of the non-AP STA as taught by Lu because he flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 7, Patil discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
However, Patil does not disclose the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to: transmit a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode; receive an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame; and enable the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame, wherein the communicating via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
transmit a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode (¶122-126, Lu discloses transmitting, by a first device to a second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode request frame to set a DSO mode where the DSO mode can be either enabled or disabled);
receive an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses receiving, by the first device from the second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode response frame in response to the DSO request frame); and
enable the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses the DSO mode indicated in the DSO request frame is enabled or disabled based in part on an acknowledgment in the DSO response frame), wherein the communicating via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode (¶272-274 & Fig. 12, Lu discloses communicating, between the non-AP STA and the AP via at least one 20 MHz secondary channel (CH2) associated with a 20MHz primary channel (CH1) based upon whether DSO mode is enabled at the non-AP STA).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil by: transmitting a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode, receiving an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame, and enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame where the communicating via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 8, Patil in view of Lu discloses the non-AP STA of claim 7.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
transmit a second request frame to disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode (¶122-126, Lu discloses transmitting, by a first device to a second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode request frame to set a DSO mode where the DSO mode can be either enabled or disabled);
receive a second acknowledgment frame in response to the second request frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses receiving, by the first device from the second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode response frame in response to the DSO request frame); and
disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the second acknowledgment frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses the DSO mode indicated in the DSO request frame is enabled or disabled based in part on an acknowledgment in the DSO response frame).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil in view of Lu2 by: transmit a second request frame to disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode, receiving a second acknowledgment frame in response to the second request frame, and disabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the second acknowledgment frame as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 11, Patil discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
However, Patil does not disclose the control frame indicates the one or more frequency resources relative to a primary channel of the non-AP STA, and wherein the primary channel is different from the anchor channel.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the control frame indicates the one or more frequency resources relative to a primary channel of the non-AP STA (¶272 & Fig. 12, Lu discloses receiving, by the non-AP STA, a DSO initial control frame where the DSO initial control frame indicates a 20 MHz secondary channel (CH2) relative/adjacent to a 20 MHz primary channel (CH1)), and wherein the primary channel is different from the anchor channel (¶108, Lu further discloses that the DSO can configure and/or indicate primary channels and/or secondary channels other than the primary channel where a DSO initial control frame is received).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil by requiring that the control frame indicates the one or more frequency resources relative to a primary channel of the non-AP STA and that the primary channel is different from the anchor channel as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 21, Patil discloses the AP STA of claim 17.
However, Patil does not disclose the processing system is further configured to cause the AP STA to: receive a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA; transmit an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame; and enable the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame, wherein the communicating with the non-AP STA via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the AP STA to:
receive a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA (¶122-126, Lu discloses receiving, by a first device from a second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode request frame to set a DSO mode where the DSO mode can be either enabled or disabled);
transmit an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode response frame in response to the DSO request frame); and
enable the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses the DSO mode indicated in the DSO request frame is enabled or disabled based in part on an acknowledgment in the DSO response frame), wherein the communicating with the non-AP STA via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA (¶272-274 & Fig. 12, Lu discloses communicating, between the non-AP STA and the AP via at least one 20 MHz secondary channel (CH2) associated with a 20MHz primary channel (CH1) based upon whether DSO mode is enabled at the non-AP STA).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil by requiring that the processing system is further configured to cause the AP STA to: receive a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA; transmit an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame; and enable the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame, wherein the communicating with the non-AP STA via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 22, Patil in view of Lu discloses the AP STA of claim 21.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the AP STA to:
receive a second request frame to disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA (¶122-126, Lu discloses receiving, by a first device from a second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode request frame to set a DSO mode where the DSO mode can be either enabled or disabled);
transmit a second acknowledgment frame in response to the second request frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode response frame in response to the DSO request frame); and
disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA based at least in part on the second acknowledgment frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses the DSO mode indicated in the DSO request frame is enabled or disabled based in part on an acknowledgment in the DSO response frame).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil in view of Lu by requiring that the processing system is further configured to cause the AP STA to: receive a second request frame to disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA; transmit a second acknowledgment frame in response to the second request frame; and disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the non-AP STA based at least in part on the second acknowledgment frame as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Luo et al. (US 20250227756 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Luo”).
Regarding Claim 9, Patil discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
However, Patil does not disclose the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to: perform a clear channel assessment energy detection via the anchor channel based at least in part on the enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode.
Luo, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
perform a clear channel assessment energy detection via the anchor channel based at least in part on the enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode (¶224-225 & Fig. 13, Luo discloses performing a clear channel assessment via the primary channel based at least in part on selective subchannel transmission being enabled. Examiner correlates selective subchannel transmission to “dynamic subchannel operation mode”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil by performing a clear channel assessment energy detection via the anchor channel based at least in part on the enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode as taught by Lu2 because wireless transmission is improved by contending for access to the secondary channel in an idle state based on a secondary channel access mode upon receiving channel occupancy information interacted by a second wireless device on a primary channel where the primary channel and the secondary channel are a group of bound channels (Luo, ¶3-5).
Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Baek et al. (US 20250343663 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Baek”).
Regarding Claim 28, Patil discloses the AP STA of claim 17.
However, Patil does not disclose the management frame comprises a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, a reassociation response frame, or any combination thereof.
Baek, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the management frame comprises a beacon frame (¶64 & ¶79, Baek discloses that a beacon frame is a management frame), a probe response frame (¶64 & ¶79, Baek discloses that a probe response frame is a management frame), an association response frame (¶64 & ¶79, Baek discloses that an association frame is a management frame), a reassociation response frame (¶64 & ¶79, Baek discloses that a re-association frame is a management frame), or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil by requiring that the management frame comprises a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, a reassociation response frame, or any combination thereof as taught by Baek because channel-based transmission or reception is improved by providing a method that allows for extending the bandwidth (Baek, ¶5-6).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 16, and 29 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11991765 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘765 Patent”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses a non-access point (AP) station (STA), comprising:
a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code), the processing system configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
receive a management frame (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses receive, from the access point based at least in part on the request, a communication addressed to the wireless station) indicating one or more anchor channels (Claim 1 and Claim 5 of the ‘765 Patent discloses that the communication, or TWT response, indicates at least two secondary channels and a primary channel for secondary channel access) within an operating bandwidth of an AP STA (Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses that the operating bandwidth is comprised at least of the primary channel and two secondary channels) for dynamic subchannel operation (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the operation of exchanging frames over secondary channels);
receive a control frame (Claim 6 of the ‘765 Patent discloses receiving a trigger frame) assigning, to the non-AP STA for the dynamic subchannel operation, one or more frequency resources included in one or more secondary subchannels associated with an anchor channel of the one or more anchor channels (Claim 6 of the ‘765 Patent discloses that the trigger frame indicates at least one resource unit corresponding to two or more secondary channels corresponding to the primary channel); and
communicate via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel based at least in part on an enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode at the non-AP STA (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses exchanging, between the wireless station and an access point, one or more frames based on a received communication indicating the TWT schedule for the wireless device).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
operate according to a same bandwidth capability for a primary channel and for the anchor channel based at least in part on the enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode (Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses that the operating bandwidth is comprised at least of the primary channel and two secondary channels where each channel is 20 MHz in bandwidth).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent further discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
transmit a frame indicating a capability to operate in a dynamic subchannel operation mode for a link (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses transmit, to an access point operating using a primary channel and a plurality of secondary channels of a total bandwidth of the access point, a request to include a resource unit allocation for the wireless station on a set of two or more secondary channels of the plurality of secondary channels), wherein the receiving the management frame indicating the one or more anchor channels within the operating bandwidth of the AP STA for the dynamic subchannel operation is based at least in part on the capability to operate in the dynamic subchannel operation mode for the link (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses receiving, from the access point based at least in part on the request, a communication addressed to the wireless station is based upon transmitting, to an access point operating using a primary channel and a plurality of secondary channels of a total bandwidth of the access point, the request).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
Claim 6 of the ‘765 Patent further discloses the control frame comprises a dynamic subchannel operation announcement frame (Claim 6 of the ‘765 Patent discloses a trigger frame that announces the activation of secondary channel access).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent further discloses wherein the anchor channel spans a 20 Megahertz bandwidth (Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses that the operating bandwidth is comprised at least of the primary channel and two secondary channels where each channel has a bandwidth of 20 MHz).
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 17, 20-22, 24-25, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 17, and 30 of the ‘765 Patent in view of Lu.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
However, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent does not disclose the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to: transmit a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode; receive an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame; and enable the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame, wherein the communicating via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
transmit a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode (¶122-126, Lu discloses transmitting, by a first device to a second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode request frame to set a DSO mode where the DSO mode can be either enabled or disabled);
receive an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses receiving, by the first device from the second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode response frame in response to the DSO request frame); and
enable the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses the DSO mode indicated in the DSO request frame is enabled or disabled based in part on an acknowledgment in the DSO response frame), wherein the communicating via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode (¶272-274 & Fig. 12, Lu discloses communicating, between the non-AP STA and the AP via at least one 20 MHz secondary channel (CH2) associated with a 20MHz primary channel (CH1) based upon whether DSO mode is enabled at the non-AP STA).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent by: transmitting a request frame to enable a dynamic subchannel operation mode, receiving an acknowledgment frame in response to the request frame, and enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the acknowledgment frame where the communicating via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel is based at least in part on the enabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent in view of Lu discloses the non-AP STA of claim 7.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
transmit a second request frame to disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode (¶122-126, Lu discloses transmitting, by a first device to a second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode request frame to set a DSO mode where the DSO mode can be either enabled or disabled);
receive a second acknowledgment frame in response to the second request frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses receiving, by the first device from the second device, a dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mode response frame in response to the DSO request frame); and
disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the second acknowledgment frame (¶122-126, Lu discloses the DSO mode indicated in the DSO request frame is enabled or disabled based in part on an acknowledgment in the DSO response frame).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent in view of Lu2 by: transmit a second request frame to disable the dynamic subchannel operation mode, receiving a second acknowledgment frame in response to the second request frame, and disabling the dynamic subchannel operation mode based at least in part on the second acknowledgment frame as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
However, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent does not disclose the control frame indicates the one or more frequency resources relative to a primary channel of the non-AP STA, and wherein the primary channel is different from the anchor channel.
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the control frame indicates the one or more frequency resources relative to a primary channel of the non-AP STA (¶272 & Fig. 12, Lu discloses receiving, by the non-AP STA, a DSO initial control frame where the DSO initial control frame indicates a 20 MHz secondary channel (CH2) relative/adjacent to a 20 MHz primary channel (CH1)), and wherein the primary channel is different from the anchor channel (¶108, Lu further discloses that the DSO can configure and/or indicate primary channels and/or secondary channels other than the primary channel where a DSO initial control frame is received).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent by requiring that the control frame indicates the one or more frequency resources relative to a primary channel of the non-AP STA and that the primary channel is different from the anchor channel as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses an access point (AP) station (STA), comprising:
transmit a management frame (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses transmit, by the access point based at least in part on the request, a communication addressed to the wireless station) indicating one or more anchor channels (Claim 1 and Claim 5 of the ‘765 Patent discloses that the communication, or TWT response, indicates at least two secondary channels and a primary channel for secondary channel access) within an operating bandwidth of the AP STA (Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses that the operating bandwidth is comprised at least of the primary channel and two secondary channels) for dynamic subchannel operation (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the operation of exchanging frames over secondary channels);
transmit a control frame (Claim 6 of the ‘765 Patent discloses receiving a trigger frame) assigning, to a non-AP STA for the dynamic subchannel operation, one or more frequency resources included in one or more secondary subchannels associated with an anchor channel of the one or more anchor channels (Claim 6 of the ‘765 Patent discloses that the trigger frame indicates at least one resource unit corresponding to two or more secondary channels corresponding to the primary channel); and
communicate with the non-AP STA via the one or more secondary subchannels associated with the anchor channel based at least in part on the control frame (Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent discloses exchanging, between the wireless station and an access point, one or more frames based on a received communication indicating the TWT schedule for the wireless device).
However, Claim 1, 5, 6, and 11 of the ‘765 Patent do not disclose a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the AP STA to [perform steps].
Lu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the AP STA to [perform steps] (¶433-438 & Fig. 18, Lu discloses a wireless device comprising a processor 1801 and memory 1804 where the memory stores a computer program for execution by the processor to cause the wireless device to implement various operations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent by requiring that a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the AP STA to [perform steps] as taught by Lu because the flexibility of the dynamic subchannel operation (DSO) mechanism and the communication effect for frame exchange based on the DSO by providing a mechanism for negotiating the DSO, which can control a channel width and/or the maximum supported spatial streams for the frame exchange between the first device and the second device based on the DSO (Lu, ¶42).
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 25, Claim 25 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 of the ‘765 Patent in view of Luo.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the non-AP STA of claim 1.
However, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent does not disclose the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to: perform a clear channel assessment energy detection via the anchor channel based at least in part on the enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode.
Luo, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the non-AP STA to:
perform a clear channel assessment energy detection via the anchor channel based at least in part on the enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode (¶224-225 & Fig. 13, Luo discloses performing a clear channel assessment via the primary channel based at least in part on selective subchannel transmission being enabled. Examiner correlates selective subchannel transmission to “dynamic subchannel operation mode”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent by performing a clear channel assessment energy detection via the anchor channel based at least in part on the enabled dynamic subchannel operation mode as taught by Lu2 because wireless transmission is improved by contending for access to the secondary channel in an idle state based on a secondary channel access mode upon receiving channel occupancy information interacted by a second wireless device on a primary channel, [0007] wherein the primary channel and the secondary channel are a group of bound channels (Luo, ¶3-5).
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 of the ‘765 Patent in view of Baek.
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent discloses the AP STA of claim 17.
However, Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent does not disclose the management frame comprises a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, a reassociation response frame, or any combination thereof.
Baek, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the management frame comprises a beacon frame (¶64 & ¶79, Baek discloses that a beacon frame is a management frame), a probe response frame (¶64 & ¶79, Baek discloses that a probe response frame is a management frame), an association response frame (¶64 & ¶79, Baek discloses that an association frame is a management frame), a reassociation response frame (¶64 & ¶79, Baek discloses that a re-association frame is a management frame), or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, and Claim 11 of the ‘765 Patent by requiring that the management frame comprises a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, a reassociation response frame, or any combination thereof as taught by Baek because channel-based transmission or reception is improved by providing a method that allows for extending the bandwidth (Baek, ¶5-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13-15, 23, and 26-27 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.
Claims 2-3 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lu et al. (US 20250379711 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Lu”) is cited to show a prior art reference that discloses Applicant’s independent claims: Lu discloses transmission of a management frame for dynamic subchannel operation (Lu, (¶270-271 & Fig. 12 & ¶94-95 & Fig. 6 (601) & ¶118), transmission of a control frame (¶272 & Fig. 12), and exchange of frames between the non-AP STA and the AP over the secondary channels indicated in the control frame (Lu, ¶272-274 & Fig. 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474