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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 3/22/2022 was considered by the examiner.
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 2-10 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 claim 2, the claim recites “to perform the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band whose congestion degree satisfies a predetermined condition among the plurality of bands”. Although the specification [0044] defines “a predetermined condition” as for example, a band whose congestion degree exceeds the threshold, the claim does not explicitly define the specific condition so that one of ordinary skill in the art may not be able to positively interpret “a predetermined condition” whether congestion degree is exceeding or below threshold. Thus, the phrase “a predetermined condition” renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 3 is rejected because it depends on independent claim 2, containing the same deficiency.
Claim 4 also recites the phrase “a predetermined condition” same as claim 2. Thus, claim 4 is rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 5 is rejected because it depends, either directly or indirectly, from claim 2 containing the same deficiency.
Claim 6 recites “the predetermined condition is a condition corresponding to a communication scheme being executed in the simultaneous connection through the plurality of bands”, which renders the claim vague and indefinite because the predetermined condition in claim 2 as ‘a band whose congestion degree exceeds the threshold”, and that a communication scheme is defined in the specification ([0052]) as “high-speed mode and a high-quality mode”, such that it is unclear how the predetermine condition corresponding to a communication scheme.
Claims 7-10 are rejected because they depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 2 containing the same deficiency.
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hegde (US 20140376392 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hegde discloses a wireless device (Fig. 2, parallel scanning device 200) comprising: a wireless communication interface (Fig. 2, transceivers 206 and 207 make a wireless communication interface); and a processing circuitry (figure 2, 202) configured to control the wireless communication interface to perform simultaneous connection to a wireless terminal using a plurality of bands, including at least a first band and a second band different from the first band ([0027] scanning device 200 uses multiple transceivers, that may be utilized to send data simultaneously on two different radio frequency channels/bands), and control the wireless communication interface to perform scanning of a wireless channel of the first band in a state in which connection using at least the second band is enabled ([0029] scanner 202 includes logic 204, which is configured to provide instruction indicating that multiple channels of a wireless network are to be scanned simultaneously).
Regarding claim 11, the reasons for rejection are the same as outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Hegde discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a control program ([0066], removable storage unit 716 may be a floppy disk that stores control logic 726 of the device), the control program causing processing circuitry of a wireless device (Fig. 2, parallel scanning device 200) to execute a process, the process comprising: controlling a wireless communication interface (Fig. 2, transceivers 206 and 207 make a wireless communication interface) of the wireless device to perform simultaneous connection to a wireless terminal using a plurality of bands, including at least a first band and a second band different from the first band ([0027] scanning device 200 uses multiple transceivers, that may be utilized to send data simultaneously on two different radio frequency channels/bands), and control the wireless communication interface to perform scanning of a wireless channel of the first band in a state in which connection using at least the second band is enabled ([0029] scanner 202 includes logic 204, which is configured to provide instruction indicating that multiple channels of a wireless network are to be scanned simultaneously).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hegde (US 20140376392 A1), in view of Watanabe (US 20220330368 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hegde differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to perform the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band whose congestion degree satisfies a predetermined condition among the plurality of bands.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Watanabe discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to perform the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band whose congestion degree satisfies a predetermined condition among the plurality of bands ([0037] AP 102 can determine that a frequency band whose degree of congestion is less than the predetermined value across all bands is usable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the wireless device of Hegde, with the interface of Watanabe, in order to perform scanning of a wireless channel that meets a predetermined condition.
Regarding claim 3, Hegde differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to perform the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band after connection using the first band is disconnected.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Watanabe discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to perform the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band after connection using the first band is disconnected ([0058] during a predetermined time from the disconnection of the radio link of 36ch of the 5 GHz band, the AP 102 may monitor (scan) whether interference with a specific radio wave occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the field of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hegde with the processing circuitry of Watanabe, in order to scan a channel of a first band after a connection to said band is severed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde (US 20140376392 A1), in view of Watanabe (US 20220330368 A1), and further in view of Jung (US 20170086204 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hegde and Watanabe differ from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that in a case where there are two or more bands whose congestion degrees satisfy the predetermined condition, the processing circuitry controls the wireless communication interface to sequentially perform scanning of wireless channels of the two or more bands whose congestion degrees satisfy the predetermined condition.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Jung discloses that that in a case where there are two or more bands whose congestion degrees satisfy the predetermined condition ([0198], the device determines whether or not a degree of congestion exists), the processing circuitry controls the wireless communication interface to sequentially perform scanning of wireless channels of the two or more bands whose congestion degrees satisfy the predetermined condition ([0262], the UE / device may scan a frequency according to a predetermined sequence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the application filing date to combine the wireless device from the combination of Hedge and Watanabe with the scanning, as taught by Jung, in order to accurately measure congestion.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde (US 20140376392 A1), in view of Watanabe (US 20220330368 A1), and further in view of Sakamoto (US 9144095 B2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hegde and Watanabe differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the congestion degree is information based on Transmission Opportunity.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Sakamoto discloses that the congestion degree is information based on Transmission Opportunity (Col. 22, lines 23-28, transmission right acquisition (aka a measure of how available or congested a channel is) is determined based on a multitude of parameters, including TXOP / Transmission Opportunity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the application filing date to combine the wireless device from the combination of Hegde and Watanabe with the congestion degree, as taught by Sakamoto, in order to accurately measure congestion.
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the wireless device is an access point configured to relay data communication between the wireless terminal and a network.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Sakamoto discloses that the wireless device is an access point configured to relay data communication between the wireless terminal and a network (Col. 5, Lines 35-45, video transmission terminal functions as an access point that allows another external terminal to join a network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the application filing date to combine the wireless device from Watanabe with the access point functionality, as taught by Sakamoto, in order to relay data between a terminal and a network.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde (US 20140376392 A1), in view of Watanabe (US 20220330368 A1), and further in view of Yu (US 20120134344 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hegde and Watanabe differs in not specifically disclosing that the predetermined condition is a condition corresponding to a communication scheme being executed in the simultaneous connection through the plurality of bands.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Yu teaches that the predetermined condition is a condition corresponding to a communication scheme being executed in the simultaneous connection through the plurality of bands ([0068], radio communication controller 902 may apply either OFDMA or SC-FDMA, a “high-speed” and “high-quality” communication scheme respectively, across both in-band and out-band transmissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the wireless device of the combination of Hegde and Watanabe with the predetermined condition as taught by Yu, in order to consistently apply communication schemes across bands.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde (US 20140376392 A1), in view of Watanabe (US 20220330368 A1), and further in view of Yuk (US 20150071275 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hegde and Watanabe differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to notify, before the connection using the first band is disconnected, the wireless terminal connected to the wireless device through the first band that the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band is to be performed.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Yuk discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to notify, before the connection using the first band is disconnected, the wireless terminal connected to the wireless device through the first band that the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band is to be performed ([0068], when a station has lost connection to a device on a frequency band, the station sends out a signal indicating the disconnection. The station is then put into full-band scanning mode, operating on the same band it lost connection to earlier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention to combine the wireless device of the combination of Hegde and Watanabe with the processing circuitry of Yuk, in order to send out a notification of a scan of a band after disconnection of said band.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde (US 20140376392 A1), in view of Watanabe (US 20220330368 A1), and further in view of Uchiyama (US 20130029679 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hegde and Watanabe differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to notify, before the connection using the first band is disconnected, the wireless terminal connected to the wireless device through the first band that the connection of the first band is enabled after time elapses after the connection using the first band is disconnected.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Uchiyama teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to notify, before the connection using the first band is disconnected, the wireless terminal connected to the wireless device through the first band that the connection of the first band is enabled after time elapses after the connection using the first band is disconnected ([0088], reconnection request signal is sent between a base station and a mobile device after a time period has passed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the wireless device of the combination of Hegde and Watanabe with the notifications of Uchiyama, in order to notify devices that a connection has been severed after a period of time.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 20220330368 A1) in view of Carlson (US 20100301999 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to perform the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band after switching a communication scheme executed between the wireless device and the wireless terminal connected to the wireless device through the first band to a predetermined communication scheme.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Carlson discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to control the wireless communication interface to perform the scanning of the wireless channel of the first band after switching a communication scheme executed between the wireless device and the wireless terminal connected to the wireless device through the first band to a predetermined communication scheme ([0040], whether in learn or operate mode (two different schemes), the receiver of a device scans all transmitter channels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention to combine the wireless device of Watanabe with the processing circuitry of Carlson, in order to perform scanning between the switching of two different operational modes / schemes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN HUYTAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN HUY DINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights