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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8-20-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-10-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Morelli teachings are different and do not teach “alternating”; In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case the primary reference Gurevitz already discloses alternating during a listening mode as indicated below. Morelli is relied to teach the basis of RSSI and Morelli is not required to teach limitations already taught by the primary reference. Therefore, the combination of Gurevitz in view of Morelli disclose the argued limitation.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 14-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevitz 20190132154 on view of Morelli 6236674.
As to claim 1, Gurevitz discloses a method for wireless communications in a wireless local area network (WLAN) performed by a first WLAN device (see par. 0020), comprising:
alternating, during a listen mode, one or more components of the first WLAN device between a power-off state of the listen mode and a power-on state of the listen mode of the first WLAN device in accordance with a duty cycle, wherein alternating the one or more components between the power-off state and the power-on state comprises two or more power-state cycles of the one or more components during the listen mode [step 902-910; the receiver may include switching the one or more RF components from the off-state to the on-state after an off-state period.] (see par. 0289-0292); and
receiving, during the power-on state of the listen mode, preamble information of a packet from a second WLAN device [step 910; repeating switching the one or more RF components between the on-state and the off-state, for example, until the frame preamble is detected by the preamble detector] (see par. 0293). Gurevitz fails to disclose based at least in part on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI). In an analogous art, Morelli discloses based at least in part on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) [below threshold level set by MAC and threshold level above greater than noise] (see col .12 lines 14-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide 'WLAN device between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode is performed when an RSSI is greater than a first RSSI threshold and less than a second RSSI threshold' to effectively switch the mobile station between an active mode and a sleep mode in order to conserve power without substantially sacrificing data exchange rate, Morelli Col. 3, Il 35-40.
As to claim 2, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein alternating the one or more components between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode includes: alternating, during the listen mode when the first WLAN device is monitoring a wireless channel for packets, the one or more components between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode (see par. 0085, 0289-0293).
As to claims 7, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein alternating the one or more components of the first WLAN device between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode is performed (see par. 0289-0293). Gurevitz fails to disclose based at least in part on the RSSI is greater than an RSSI threshold. In an analogous art, Morelli discloses wherein alternating the one or more components is performed when the RSSI is greater than a first RSSI threshold and less than a second RSSI threshold [below threshold level set by MAC and threshold level above greater than noise] (see col .12 lines 14-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide 'WLAN device between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode is performed when an RSSI is greater than a first RSSI threshold and less than a second RSSI threshold' to effectively switch the mobile station between an active mode and a sleep mode in order to conserve power without substantially sacrificing data exchange rate, Morelli Col. 3, Il 35-40.
As to claim 8, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more components of the first WLAN device include at least one of: a radio frequency (RF) front end; an analog-to-digital converter (ADC); or a baseband processing unit (see par. 0055, 0086).
As to claim 14, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring for a preamble of the packet while operating in the power-on state of the listen mode[,] using the preamble information in response to detecting the preamble information [controller 164 (FIG. 1) may be configured to trigger, cause, instruct and/or control receiver 116 (FIG. 1) to switch the one or more RF components 170 (FIG. 1) between the on-state and the off-state based on the detection criterion for preamble] (see par. 0085, 0289).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 20, they are the corresponding first wireless local area network device and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims of method claims 1-2. Therefore, claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above and fig. 1 for the processor, memory, etc.
As to claim 21, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each respective power-state cycle of the two or more power-state cycles includes the power-on state and the power-off state with each of the power-on state and the power-off state having a respective duration in accordance with the duty cycle [in accordance with the duty circle is equated to inside the allowed cycle; thereby, inherent] (see par. 0132-0135).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
