DETAILED ACTION
Status of Case
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 11/2/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/2/2023 has been considered by Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: after the terms “A communication device comprising” there should be a “:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: after the terms “A communication method comprising” there should be a “:”. Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations “a first communication unit” and “a second communication unit” in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11, “a channel control unit” in claim 7, “a power control unit” in claim 9, “a communication unit” in claims 14 and 17, “a network setting unit” in claims 15 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-6, 14-18, and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “…a second zone near the first zone” in the last line of the claim. However, it is unclear what exactly is meant by a zone being “near” another zone. As such, claim 3 is indefinite.
Claims 4-6 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on claim 3.
Claim 14 recites “…a third network present near the local zone..” Similar to claim 3 above, it is unclear what is meant by “near”. As such, claim 14 is indefinite.
Claims 15-18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on claim 14.
Claim 19 recites “…a third network present near the local zone..” Similar to claim 3 above, it is unclear what is meant by “near”. As such, claim 19 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhushan (USPAN 2020/0396695).
Consider claims 1 and 13, Bhushan discloses a communication device (see figures 1 and 2 (figure 2 being reproduced below for convenience), wherein disclosed is said device), and a corresponding communication method (see paragraphs 45, 46, 57, 58, 79, and 89-104, wherein disclosed is said method) comprising: a first communication unit configured to perform communication over a first network that interconnects a plurality of zones in a vehicle; and a second communication unit configured to perform wireless communication over a second network formed in a first zone that is one of the plurality of zones (see paragraphs 45, 46, 57, 58, 79, and 89-104, wherein disclosed is a wireless system capable of supporting in-vehicle communication and providing a plurality of access points that provide a plurality of networks that have a plurality of zones (with the plurality of networks having overlapping coverage), in which a second device communications over a second network formed in a first zone that is one of the plurality of zones that the first network interconnects, as also shown in figure 2; paragraph 46 specifically discloses that the network can be an in-vehicle communication system).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consider claim 2, Bhushan discloses that the second network is a wireless network, and the communication device operates as an access point of the second network (see figure 2 and paragraphs 46-47: the second network is a wireless network and the device is an AP of the second network).
Consider claim 3, Bhushan discloses that a communication range of the second communication unit overlaps with a communication range of an access point of a third network that is a wireless network formed in a second zone near the first zone (see figure 2 and paragraph 60, wherein disclosed is overlapping coverage between said access point of said third network and that of said second zone).
Consider claim 4, Bhushan discloses that the second communication unit operates in coordination with the access point of the third network (see paragraphs 34-35 and 50, wherein disclosed is that the access points coordinate/cooperate with each other in said manner).
Consider claim 5, Bhushan discloses that the second communication unit performs, in coordination with the access point of the third network, data transmission with another communication device present in a range in which the communication range of the second communication unit and the communication range of the access point of the third network overlap with each other (see figure 2, paragraphs 34-35, 50, and 60, wherein disclosed is said coordination of the second communication unit with the AP of the third network when such overlapping occurs).
Consider claim 7, Bhushan discloses a channel control unit configured to control a frequency channel of the second communication unit on a basis of at least one of a communication condition of the second network, a frequency channel of a wireless network formed in a neighboring zone of the first zone, or surroundings of the vehicle (see paragraphs 35-38: channel selection based on minimizing co-channel interference).
Consider claim 8, Bhushan discloses that the communication condition of the second network includes at least one of a data transmission volume, an allowable data delay time, or required data reliability (paragraphs 35-38: channel selection based on minimizing co-channel interference, and from paragraph 36, the co-channel interference causes increased latencies in data transmission, and thus, the channel selection is based on an allowable data latency time).
Consider claim 9, Bhushan discloses a power control unit configured to control transmit power of the second communication unit in accordance with a communication status of a wireless network formed in a neighboring zone (see paragraph 38: employing transmission power adjustment operations within the multi-AP environment by reducing co-channel interference, which relies on the communication status of the network formed in neighboring zones).
Consider claim 10, Bhushan discloses that in a case where a failure occurs in an access point in the neighboring zone, the power control unit increases the transmit power of the second communication unit so as to allow the second communication unit to communicate with another communication device in the neighboring zone (see paragraph 38: employing transmission power adjustment operations within the multi-AP environment by reducing co-channel interference, to thereby eliminate “dead zones,” in which a failure of communication has occurred).
Consider claim 11, Bhushan discloses that the second communication unit performs wired communication with some of other communication devices constituting the second network (see paragraphs 45, 49, and 124: said wired communication).
Consider claim 12, Bhushan discloses that the first network includes a wired network (see paragraphs 45 and 49: said wired network).
Consider claims 14 and 19, Bhushan discloses a communication device (see figures 1 and 2 (figure 2 being reproduced below for convenience), wherein disclosed is said device), and a corresponding communication method (see paragraphs 45, 46, 57, 58, 79, and 89-104, wherein disclosed is said method) comprising: a communication unit configured to communicate with an access point of a second network formed in a local zone that is one of a plurality of zones in a vehicle, the plurality of zones being interconnected by a first network, and communicate with an access point of a third network present near the local zone (see paragraphs 45, 46, 57, 58, 79, and 89-104, wherein disclosed is a wireless system capable of supporting in-vehicle communication and providing a plurality of access points that provide a plurality of networks that have a plurality of zones (with the plurality of networks having overlapping coverage), in which a second device communications over a second network formed in a first zone that is one of the plurality of zones that the first network interconnects, as also shown in figure 2; paragraph 46 specifically discloses that the network can be an in-vehicle communication system; see paragraphs 34, 40, and 47: communicating with an access point of a third network present at the local area network (i.e., local zone)).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consider claim 15, Bhushan discloses a network setting unit configured to exchange, with the access point of the local zone, information regarding the local zone and a neighboring zone of the local zone (see paragraphs 34-35 and 50, wherein disclosed is that the access points coordinate/cooperate with each other by exchanging said information with each other).
Consider claim 16, Bhushan discloses a network setting unit configured to recognize, in a case where signals from a plurality of access points are detected, an access point with highest signal strength as the access point of the local zone (see paragraph 96: STAs can be steered from one AP to another AP whenever the STA’s-related data performance is deficient, such as exceeding or falling below a threshold value range and a first AP can send a steering request to the STA and can inform the second AP that is should expect the STA to join the second AP’s BSS, and the reason for why the STA is being steered (i.e., a high SNR value, etc.)).
Consider claim 17, Bhushan discloses that the communication unit is connected by wire with the access point of the local zone (see paragraphs 45, 49, and 124: said connection by wire).
Consider claim 18, Bhushan discloses processing of establishing a connection with another access point is performed in a case where a connection with the access point of the local zone is lost (see paragraph 38: employing transmission power adjustment operations within the multi-AP environment by reducing co-channel interference, to thereby eliminate “dead zones,” in which a failure of communication has occurred; also, see paragraphs 34-35 and 50, wherein disclosed is that the access points coordinate/cooperate with each other by exchanging said information with each other).
Consider claim 20, Bhushan discloses a vehicle (see figures 1 and 2 (figure 2 being reproduced below for convenience), wherein disclosed is a device, and from paragraph 46, it is specifically disclosed that the device can be a vehicle) comprising: a first network that interconnects a plurality of zones; and a plurality of second networks, each of which including a wireless network formed in each of the zones (see paragraphs 45, 46, 57, 58, 79, and 89-104, wherein disclosed is a wireless system capable of supporting in-vehicle communication and providing a plurality of access points that provide a plurality of networks that have a plurality of zones (with the plurality of networks having overlapping coverage), in which a second device communications over a second network formed in a first zone that is one of the plurality of zones that the first network interconnects, as also shown in figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Spapis (WO 2018/065049 A1). For example, see page 5 lines 14-30 and figures 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamal Javaid whose telephone number is 571-270-5137 and email address is Jamal.Javaid@uspto.gov.
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, Charles Jiang, can be reached on 571-270-7191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JAMAL JAVAID/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412