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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
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 1, 5-7, 11, and 12 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 1 and 7, “the in-order MPDU” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210083805 (Kneckt) in view of US 5317692 (Ashton) further in view of US 20220279602 (Xue), US 5875186 (Belanger), US 20240020010 (Yokoi), WO 2007054695 (Porter), and US 20150062134 (Holland).
Regarding claim 7, Kneckt teaches or suggests an electronic device, (¶ 30, 33) comprising:
a host controller (¶ 33);
a memory (¶ 33-34); and
a wireless communication module (¶ 33);
wherein the wireless communication module wirelessly receives a frame (¶¶ 3, 30), and generates a plurality of media address control protocol data units (MPDU) according to the frame (¶¶ 30-31).
Kneckt does not expressly disclose but Ashton teaches or suggests the host controller establishes pre-linked buffers in the memory (5:63-66); the wireless communication module writes the MSDUs of the plurality of MPDUs into the pre-linked buffers, wherein each buffer is configured to store one MSDU (6:25-33); the wireless communication module generates a command if the memory has in-order MPDUs (7:12-14); and the host controller reads the in-order MPDUs from the memory according to the command (7:12-14). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kneckt’s data transfer and Ashton’s buffers in order to manage the flow of data between devices operating at different speeds or experiencing fluctuations in data transfer rates.
Kneckt does not expressly disclose but Xue teaches or suggests each of the MPDUs comprises at least one medium access control service data unit (MSDU) (¶ 92, fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kneckt’s data transfer, Ashton’s buffers, and Xue’s data structure in order to encapsulate higher-layer data for transmission over a wireless network.
Kneckt does not expressly disclose but Belanger teaches or suggests the host controller establishes an address-element table, and the wireless communication module records address information of each of the MPDUs stored in the memory in the address-element table (15:25-31). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kneckt’s data transfer, Ashton’s buffers, Xue’s data structure, and Belanger’s table in order to track which frames were sent and received.
Kneckt does not expressly disclose but Yokoi teaches or suggests the host controller establishes an address-element table, and the wireless communication module records address information of each of the MPDUs stored in the memory in the address-element table (15:25-31). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kneckt’s data transfer, Ashton’s buffers, Xue’s data structure, and Belanger’s table, and Yokoi’s address elements in order to track the location of data in the buffer.
Kneckt teaches or suggests the plurality of address elements correspond to a plurality of sequence numbers of MPDUs, respectively (¶¶ 45-46). Kneckt does not expressly disclose but Porter teaches or suggests the command comprises a start sequence number of the in-order MPDUs (14:8-19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kneckt’s data transfer, Ashton’s buffers, Xue’s data structure, and Belanger’s table, Yokoi address elements, and Porter’s command to access a certain frame.
Kneckt does not expressly disclose but Holland teaches or suggests the command comprises the MPDU count of the in-order MPDUs, wherein the MPDU count is a number of MPDUs within the in-order MPDU (claim 16). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kneckt’s data transfer, Ashton’s buffers, Xue’s data structure, Belanger’s table, Yokoi address elements, Porter’s command, and Holland’s count to access to indicate how many MPDUs are included in the command.
Regarding claim 1, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the claimed limitations as explained regarding claim 7 supra, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the host controller determines one or more address elements of the address-element table based on the command, and uses the determined address element(s) to read the in-order MPDUs from the memory (Ashton 5:40-54, Porter 14:8-19). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claims 1 and 7.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210083805 (Kneckt) in view of US 5317692 (Ashton) further in view of US 20220279602 (Xue), US 5875186 (Belanger), US 20240020010 (Yokoi), WO 2007054695 (Porter), US 20150062134 (Holland), and US 5373470 (Jones).
Kneckt teaches or suggests the electronic device is an access point (AP) (¶ 30), and the memory is a random access memory (RAM) (¶¶ 33-34).
Kneckt does not expressly disclose but Jones teaches or suggests the RAM is a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) (1:48-52). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kneckt’s data transfer, Ashton’s buffers, Xue’s data structure, Belanger’s table, Yokoi address elements, Porter’s command, Holland’s count, and Jones’ DRAM because of the latter’s high density, low cost, and relatively fast speeds compared to other memory types.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that “Porter does not teach or suggest a command comprising a number of MPDUs within the in-order MPDU as claimed.” (Resp. 7.) Holland has been added, however, to teach or suggest the argued limitations.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20220077968 aggregating a plurality of MSDUs (¶ 175).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights