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
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 12/30/2024, 12/16/2024 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24, 38 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.
-
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 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)(1) 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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 20, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heidari (US-20110096739).
As to claim 20, 34: Heidari teaches a method implemented by a primary device of a domain, wherein the method comprises: receiving, from secondary devices of the domain, a plurality of second channel score information indicating degrees of interference of channels ([0042, 43, 47] AP may command one or more other stations on its wireless communication network to perform channel scanning and send the results back to the AP); generating, based on each of the second channel score information and first channel score information of the primary device (abstract Channel scanning may be performed in any station on the wireless network, such as an access point (AP) or a mobile station, or both), first radio resource management (RRM) information ([0042] The AP may then use these results to select the best channel for data communication; [0033] The channel quality is then used to rank the channels), wherein the first RRM information indicates a priority ranking of the channels, and wherein higher priorities of the channels indicate lower degrees of interference of the channels ([0033, 47] The channel quality is then used to rank the channels, interference); and sending, to each of the secondary devices, the first RRM information ([0044] The AP may advertise the results of scanning multiple channels, including a quality ranking of channels, to other devices on the network).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 21, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidari (US-20110096739) in view of Sadek (US-20140226506).
As to claim 21, 35: Heidari teaches the method of claim 20, wherein generating the first RRM information comprises: obtaining, from the secondary devices, channel interference information ([0042, 43, 47] AP may command one or more other stations on its wireless communication network to perform channel scanning and send the results back to the AP);
Heidari may not explicitly teach combining the channel interference information to obtain target channel interference information, wherein the target channel interference information comprises channel interference scores of the channels or interference duty cycles of the channels; and generating, based on the target channel interference information, the first RRM information. However, Sadek teaches combining the channel interference information to obtain target channel interference information, wherein the target channel interference information comprises channel interference scores of the channels or interference duty cycles of the channels ([0042] Interference levels, burst lengths, duty cycle, serving RSSIs and different number of nodes detected may be fused into one metric that may quantify the link quality); and generating, based on the target channel interference information, the first RRM information ([0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement interference levels, taught by Sadek, into the communication system, taught by Heidari, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine link quality. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Heidari and Sadek in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 22, 23, 36, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heidari (US-20110096739).
As to claim 22, 36: Heidari teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising updating the first RRM information based on one or more of:
the channel interference scores ([0047, 51] The process can repeat in this manner continuously, such that it continues to update the measures of channel quality and ranks for all channels to determine the current best channel at any given time); the interference duty cycles; a service priority of a team corresponding to each of the channels; a remaining rate capacity of each of the channels; a total rate capacity of each of the channels; or a quantity of devices comprised in each team.
As to claim 23, 37: Heidari teaches the method of claim 22, wherein before generating the first RRM information, the method further comprises measuring each of the channels to obtain the first channel score information (abstract Channel scanning may be performed in any station on the wireless network, such as an access point (AP) or a mobile station, or both).
Claim(s) 25, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidari (US-20110096739) in view of Banerjea (US-7974299).
As to claim 25, 39: Heidari teaches the method of claim 20.
Heidari may not explicitly teach further comprising: determining that the primary device meets a channel switching condition, wherein the channel switching condition comprises one or more of: frame freezing of a service has occurred; a service delay has exceeded a preset threshold; or a first channel on which the primary device currently works is busy; and sending, in response to determining that the primary device meets the channel switching condition, a notification frame to a first device in a team in which the primary device is located, wherein the notification frame instructs the first device to switch to an alternative channel. However, Banerjea teaches further comprising: determining that the primary device meets a channel switching condition, wherein the channel switching condition comprises one or more of: frame freezing of a service has occurred; a service delay has exceeded a preset threshold; or a first channel on which the primary device currently works is busy (Abstract determining that the number of packets within the transmitter buffer exceeds a pre-determined threshold; 6:48-67 When there are problems within the transmission channel that affect transmission, sometimes the problems may be severe enough to warrant changing transmission channels); and sending, in response to determining that the primary device meets the channel switching condition, a notification frame to a first device in a team in which the primary device is located, wherein the notification frame instructs the first device to switch to an alternative channel (2:30-33 transmitting a unicast message to one or more receivers indicating that the transmission channel is going to be changed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determining delay exceeding a threshold, taught by Banerjea, into the communication system, taught by Heidari, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine if channel switching is necessary. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Banerjea and Heidari in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidari (US-20110096739) in view of Zhang (EP-3236692-A1).
As to claim 26: Heidari teaches the method of claim 20.
Heidari may not explicitly teach further comprising: determining that a first secondary device and a second secondary device comprised in a team work on a plurality of first channels; and sending, to the second secondary device and in response to determining that the first secondary device and the second secondary device work on the first channels, a notification frame instructing the second secondary device to switch to a second channel that is of the first channels and that is on which the first secondary device works. However, Zhang teaches further comprising: determining that a first secondary device and a second secondary device comprised in a team work on a plurality of first channels (abstract); and sending, to the second secondary device and in response to determining that the first secondary device and the second secondary device work on the first channels, a notification frame instructing the second secondary device to switch to a second channel that is of the first channels (abstract a first AP sends, by using a first channel, a unicast channel switching message to a first terminal associated with the first AP, where the unicast channel switching message is used to instruct the first terminal to switch from the first channel to a second channel) and that is on which the first secondary device works ([0026] The second channel may be any channel that is different from the first channel. Optionally, the second channel may be an operating channel of another AP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement channel switching, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Heidari, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve connectivity between devices on same channel. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Heidari and Zhang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidari (US-20110096739) in view of Kruys (US-20090201851).
As to claim 27: Heidari teaches the method of claim 20.
Heidari may not explicitly teach further comprising: determining that a first team and a second team work on a first channel; and sending, to the second team and in response to determining that the first team and the second team work on the first channel, a notification frame instructing the second team to switch from the first channel to a fourth channel. However, Kruys teaches further comprising: determining that a first team and a second team work on a first channel ([0029] In one implementation, all mesh access points operate on the same channel); and sending, to the second team and in response to determining that the first team and the second team work on the first channel ([0013] The root node or controller re-computes one or more channel assignments for the mesh network and assigns the new channel(s) to the appropriate mesh nodes), a notification frame instructing the second team to switch from the first channel to a fourth channel (abstract, [0029, 30] the root access point 21 or controller 20 initiates the channel change by transmitting channel assignment messages that propagate down to the leaf nodes of the mesh network).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement channel switching, taught by Kruys, into the communication system, taught by Heidari, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce interference between multiple devices. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kruys and Heidari in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466