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 .
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.
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 1-12 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 1, the claim is rejected as it is unclear what, if any substantive portions of the claim are actually required by the claim.
We will start with the preamble:
1. A communication apparatus configured to perform first wireless communication via an external access point and second wireless communication not via an external access point, the communication apparatus comprising:
Any 802.11 wireless device would meet this standard, as they are all capable of communicating through an access point (infrastructure mode), or through peer stations (ad hoc mode). Examiner submits that it this is not necessary to give the claim life.
Moving on to the next limitation:
at least one memory and at least one processor and/or at least one circuit which function as:
Examiner submits that this would be the only required element of the claim, which these would essentially be inherent within any communication apparatus using the 802.11 standard. Additionally, this would not be required in the method claim 11, or the CRM claim 12.
Moving on to the next limitation:
a first reception unit configured to, in a case where a wireless setting mode is enabled, receive information regarding an external access point from a terminal apparatus through a direct connection established between the communication apparatus and the terminal apparatus not via an external access point outside the communication apparatus;
The entirety of the limitation depends on the phrasing “in a case where” which means the entirety of the limitation is optional, such that it is not limiting on the claim.
Moving on to the next limitation:
a second reception unit configured to, based on the information regarding the external access point received by the first reception unit, connect to an external access point and receive a first trigger frame compliant with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard from the external access point, the first trigger frame including information regarding execution of carrier sense;
This limitation depends, almost completely on the previous optional subject matter, so it itself is optional. Essentially, if the first reception unit doesn’t get the information, it cannot connect to the access point, and the rest of this limitation cannot be performed.
Moving on to the next limitation:
a first transmission unit configured to, in a case where the first trigger frame includes information indicating that the carrier sense is to be executed, execute the carrier sense and then transmit data; and
The entirety of the limitation depends on the phrasing “in a case where” which means the entirety of the limitation is optional, such that it is not limiting on the claim.
Moving on to the next limitation:
a second transmission unit configured to, in a case where the communication apparatus operates as a master station that is configured to determine a communication channel to be used in the second wireless communication, transmit a second trigger frame compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standard to a slave station apparatus connected to the master station, the second trigger frame including information indicating that the carrier sense is to be executed.
The entirety of the limitation depends on the phrasing “in a case where,” which means the entirety of the limitation is optional, such that it is not limiting on the claim.
In summary:
Essentially the entire inventive subject matter of the claim is phrased in optional limitations, or depending on other optional limitations.
Examiner also notes that there are situations where none of these “in a case where” situations are met, leaving the claim reading on essentially any wireless communication device that supports the 802.11 standard.
Therefore, the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be fairly determined.
Examiner notes that Independent Claims 11 and 12 have similar concerns as independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and not correcting the underlying indefiniteness issue.
Additionally, the phrasing of the term using “unit” would appear to invoke 112(f). However, the specification does not define any of these units in a substantive way that would provide the necessary disclosure to support such an invocation.
This is a separate indefiniteness issue and a separate indefiniteness rejection which appears below.
Claim limitations “a first reception unit”, “a second reception unit”, “a first transmission unit”, “a second transmission unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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.
(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.
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, 4, 5 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bang (US 2023/0362711) in view of Chun (US 2024/0276525) in view of Wentink (US 2016/0353485)
NOTE: As discussed above, there are several “in a case of” statements within the claims making limitations optional, depending on which are determined, the claim is either anticipated or rendered obvious based on the references.
Regarding Claim 1, 11 and 12, Bang teaches communication apparatus configured to perform first wireless communication via an external access point and second wireless communication not via an external access point (¶ [0102] – [0106], see specifically provisioning of the devices to the access point), the communication apparatus comprising:
at least one memory and at least one processor and/or at least one circuit (¶ [0037], see specifically processor and memory) which function as:
a first reception unit configured to, in a case where a wireless setting mode is enabled, receive information regarding an external access point from a terminal apparatus through a direct connection established between the communication apparatus and the terminal apparatus not via an external access point outside the communication apparatus (¶ [0105], see specifically enrollment process);
a second reception unit configured to, based on the information regarding the external access point received by the first reception unit, connect to an external access point (¶ [0105], see specifically enrollment process)
Bang fails to explicitly teach receive a first trigger frame compliant with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard from the external access point, the first trigger frame including information regarding execution of carrier sense;
a first transmission unit configured to, in a case where the first trigger frame includes information indicating that the carrier sense is to be executed, execute the carrier sense and then transmit data; and
a second transmission unit configured to, in a case where the communication apparatus operates as a master station that is configured to determine a communication channel to be used in the second wireless communication, transmit a second trigger frame compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standard to a slave station apparatus connected to the master station, the second trigger frame including information indicating that the carrier sense is to be executed.
Chun from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a first transmission unit configured to, in a case where the first trigger frame includes information indicating that the carrier sense is to be executed, execute the carrier sense and then transmit data (¶ [0194], see specifically channel sensing is required); and
a second trigger frame including information indicating that the carrier sense is to be executed (¶ [0194], see specifically channel sensing is required)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to trigger channel sensing in the system of Chun.
The motivation is that channel sensing is an important part of listen before talk, and it would therefore be obvious to do so as ISM bands require it’s use.
Wentink from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a second transmission unit configured to, in a case where the communication apparatus operates as a master station that is configured to determine a communication channel to be used in the second wireless communication, transmit a second trigger frame compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standard to a slave station apparatus connected to the master station (¶ [0037], [0037], see specifically IBSS and Master).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use the device to have a master node in a independent base station network in the system of Bang as taught by Wentink.
The motivation is that 802.11 networks allow for various constructions, both infrastructure and ad-hoc, and it would be obvious to have channel assessments and scanning in both systems as it allows the systems to reduce collisions.
Regarding Claim 2, Bang teaches a printer which performs printing processing on a sheet based on print data received from the slave station apparatus (¶ [0103], see specifically a printer.)
Regarding Claim 4, Bang fails to explicitly teach in a case where the first transmission unit executes the carrier sense and determines that sensed energy is less than a threshold, the first transmission unit transmits status information indicating a state of the communication apparatus by using one or more resource units allocated to the communication apparatus by the first trigger frame
Chun from the same or similar field of endeavor in a case where the first transmission unit executes the carrier sense and determines that sensed energy is less than a threshold, the first transmission unit transmits status information indicating a state of the communication apparatus by using one or more resource units allocated to the communication apparatus by the first trigger frame (¶ [0124], see specifically the discussion of the allocation and the transmission, ¶ [0201], see specifically status report))
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to trigger channel sensing in the system of Chun.
The motivation is that channel sensing is an important part of listen before talk, and it would therefore be obvious to do so as ISM bands require it’s use.
Regarding Claim 5, Bang fails to explicitly teach the second trigger frame includes the information indicating that the carrier sense is to be executed and information regarding allocation of one or more resource units.
Chun from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the second trigger frame includes the information indicating that the carrier sense is to be executed and information regarding allocation of one or more resource units (¶ [0124], see specifically the discussion of the allocation and the transmission, ¶ [0201], see specifically status report))
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to trigger channel sensing in the system of Chun.
The motivation is that channel sensing is an important part of listen before talk, and it would therefore be obvious to do so as ISM bands require it’s use.
Regarding Claim 8, Bang teaches the first wireless communication and the second wireless communication are performed using the same communication channel (¶ [0127], see the discussion of the corresponding channels. NOTE: Examiner submits that as part of 802.11, there is the ability to share spectrum between different networks, and it would therefore be obvious that this could be performed on the same or different channels.)
Regarding Claim 9, Bang teaches the first wireless communication and the second wireless communication are performed using different communication channels (¶ [0127], see the discussion of the corresponding channels. NOTE: Examiner submits that as part of 802.11, there is the ability to share spectrum between different networks, and it would therefore be obvious that this could be performed on the same or different channels.)
Regarding Claim 10, Bang further teaches the communication apparatus performs wireless communication using a frequency band selected from among frequency bands of 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz (¶ [0163], see specifically 2.4 or 5ghz.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang (US 2023/0362711) in view of Chun (US 2024/0276525) in view of Wentink (US 2016/0353485) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pao
Regarding Claim 3, Bang fails to explicitly teach comprising a scanner which scans documents and acquires scan data, wherein, in a case where the first transmission unit executes the carrier sense and determines that sensed energy is less than a threshold, the first transmission unit transmits the data by using one or more resource units allocated to the communication apparatus by the first trigger frame.
Chun from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches in a case where the first transmission unit executes the carrier sense and determines that sensed energy is less than a threshold, the first transmission unit transmits the scan data by using one or more resource units allocated to the communication apparatus by the first trigger frame (¶ [0124], see specifically the discussion of the allocation and the transmission.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to trigger channel sensing in the system of Chun.
The motivation is that channel sensing is an important part of listen before talk, and it would therefore be obvious to do so as ISM bands require it’s use.
Pao from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches comprising a scanner which scans documents and acquires scan data (¶ [0054], see specifically scanner.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use a scanner in the system of Bang as taught by Pao.
The motivation is that a scanner is a common device on a network and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to accommodate one in this system.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang (US 2023/0362711) in view of Chun (US 2024/0276525) in view of Wentink (US 2016/0353485) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shanmugam (US 2023/0403726).
Regarding Claim 6, Bang fails to explicitly teach a maximum number of apparatuses to which resource units are allocated that is specified in the second trigger frame is equal to a maximum number of slave station apparatuses that are maintainable in parallel in the second wireless communication.
Shanmugam from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a maximum number of apparatuses to which resource units are allocated that is specified in the second trigger frame is equal to a maximum number of slave station apparatuses that are maintainable in parallel in the second wireless communication (¶ [0004], see specifically nine clients per trigger frame).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have a limit in the number of clients addressable in a single trigger frame in the system of Bang as taught by Shanmugam
The motivation is that a hard limit allows for a reduction in overhead as the system is not required to support an unlimited number of devices at a given moment, also the fact that there is only a certain amount of bandwidth available over a certain period of time makes it obvious that the medium is not fully infinitely dividable.
Regarding Claim 7, Bang fails to explicitly teach the communication apparatus operating as the master station maintains wireless connections for the second wireless communication with a predetermined number or less than the predetermined number of slave station apparatuses in parallel.
Shanmugam from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the communication apparatus operating as the master station maintains wireless connections for the second wireless communication with a predetermined number or less than the predetermined number of slave station apparatuses in parallel (¶ [0004], see specifically nine clients per trigger frame).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have a limit in the number of clients addressable in a single trigger frame in the system of Bang as taught by Shanmugam
The motivation is that a hard limit allows for a reduction in overhead as the system is not required to support an unlimited number of devices at a given moment, also the fact that there is only a certain amount of bandwidth available over a certain period of time makes it obvious that the medium is not fully infinitely dividable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409