CTNF 18/615,160 CTNF 94765 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-22-01 The drawings Fig. 1A and 9 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because of lacking descriptive legends as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as being anticipated by Almeida et al (US20150117418A1) . Regarding claim 1 (Original), Almeida’418 discloses a first communication device ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ), comprising: at least one processor ( see, Fig. 8 control circuitry including processor, par 0056 ); and at least one memory storing instructions ( see, Fig. 8, at least one memory including a computer program code, par 0056 ) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first communication device at least to ( see, Fig. 8, computer program code stored in memory executed by processor to carry out processes, par 0056 ): receive, from a plurality of communication devices ( Fig. 7 700-702, APs can be equated to a plurality of communication devices, par 0045 ), a plurality of timing synchronization function (TSF) timer values ( see, Fig. 7 700-702, AP receives from neighbor APs their TSF timer in beacon, par 0045, 0054 ); and transmit, to at least one communication device among the plurality of communication devices ( Fig. 7 708, APs can be equated to a plurality of communication devices, par 0046 ) and based on the plurality of TSF timer values ( Fig. 7 700-702, TSFs of neighbor APs can be equated to plurality of TSF timer values, par 0045, 0054 ), control information ( see, Fig. 7 700-708, each of APs periodically adjusts TSF based on received TSFs from neighbor APs and transmits further beacon with adjusted TSF to neighbor APs, par 0054. Noted, beacon with adjusted TSF can be equated to control information, par 0054 ), wherein the control information ( Fig. 7 708, beacon with adjusted TSF, par 0054 ) is for controlling an operation of the at least one communication device ( Fig. 7, neighbor APs can be equated to at least one communication device, par 0054 ) on at least one TSF timer value ( see, Fig. 7 708, AP sends periodically adjusted TSFs in beacon and neighbor AP will adjust their TSF accordingly, par 0054 ). Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Almeida’418 discloses the first communication device of claim 1 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ), wherein the control information ( broadcasted beacon including TSF can be equated to control information, par 0054 ) is for adjusting at least one of the following: at least one probability that the at least one communication device transmits the at least one TSF timer value within a predetermined time interval; or the at least one TSF timer value of the at least one communication device ( see, APs periodically adjust their TSF timers based on TSF timers broadcasted in beacons from neighbor APs, par 0054. Noted, the examiner picks an option to reject ). Regarding claim 10 (Original), Almeida’418 discloses a second communication device ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ), comprising: at least one processor ( see, Fig. 8 control circuitry including processor, par 0056 ); and at least one memory storing instructions ( see, Fig. 8, at least one memory including a computer program code, par 0056 ) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second communication device at least to ( see, Fig. 8, computer program code stored in memory executed by processor to carry out processes, par 0056 ): receive, from a first communication device ( Fig. 7 708, neighbor AP can be equated to a first communication device, par 0054 ), control information ( see, Fig. 7 700-708, each AP receives from neighbor AP the beacon with TSF timers /adjusted TSF timers, par 0054. Noted, beacon with TSF/adjusted TSF can be equated to control information, par 0054 ), wherein the control information ( Fig. 7 708, beacon with adjusted TSF, par 0054 ) is for controlling an operation of the second communication device on timing synchronization function (TSF) timer values ( see, Fig. 7 708, each AP adjust corresponding TSF according to received TSFs/periodically adjusted TSFs in beacon from neighbor APs, par 0054 ); and perform, based on the control information ( Fig. 7 708, beacon with adjusted TSF, par 0054 ), the operation on the TSF timer values ( see, Fig. 7 708, each AP adjusts corresponding TSF timer according to received TSF timers/periodically adjusted TSF timers in beacon from neighbor APs, par 0054 ). Regarding claim 14 (Original), Claim 14 recites a communication method performing the steps recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Regarding claim 15 (Original), Claim 15 recites a communication method performing the steps recited in claim 10 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 col. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida’418 in view of Kasslin et al (US20150200811A1) . Regarding claim 2 (Original), Almeida’418 discloses the first communication device of claim 1 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ), further comprising. Almeida’418 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: determining, based on the plurality of TSF timer values, a plurality of priorities of the plurality of communication devices; and generating, based on the plurality of priorities, the control information. However Kasslin’811 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 7A, wireless device in discover mode communicates with two neighbor awareness network (NAN) clusters in NAN network, par 0261 ) discloses: determining, based on the plurality of TSF timer values ( TSF values of each NAN Cluster of clusters can be equated to plurality of TSF timer values, par 0276-0277 ), a plurality of priorities ( CGs with CG (Cluster Grade) of each NAN cluster including NAN devices can be equated to plurality of priorities of the plurality of communication devices, par 0276 ) of the plurality of communication devices ( see, Fig. 7C, determines CG (Cluster Grade) of each of NAN Clusters based on TSF value of NAN Cluster, par 0276-0277 ); and generating, based on the plurality of priorities, the control information ( see, NAN device moves to NAN Cluster with the highest CG of CGs and transmits beacon with its own TSF (implied generating new beacon), par 0261, 0265, 0274, 0277. Noted, sync device or master device transmits beacon with its own TSF, par 0274 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the first communication device as taught by Kasslin’811 into that of Almeida’418. The motivation would have been to enable discovery of networks in a wireless communications medium ( 0006 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida’418 in view of Kasslin’811 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Patil et al (US20170311341A1) . Regarding claim 3 (Original), Almeida’418 modified by Kasslin’811 discloses the first communication device of claim 2 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ). Almeida’418 and Kasslin’811 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein determining the plurality of priorities comprises: based on determining that a TSF timer value of a second communication device among the plurality of communication devices is greater than, equal to, or less than a TSF timer value of a third communication device among the plurality of communication devices, determining that the priority of the second communication device is higher than, equal to, or lower than the priority of the third communication device. However Patil’341 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 2A, multiple wireless devices in a NAN cluster, par 0045 ) discloses: based on determining that a TSF timer value of a second communication device among the plurality of communication devices is greater than, equal to, or less than a TSF timer value of a third communication device among the plurality ( Fig. 2A, plurality of STAs can be equated to plurality of communication devices, par 0067 ) of communication devices, determining that the priority of the second communication device is higher than, equal to, or lower than the priority of the third communication device ( see, Fig. 2A, assignment of STAs’ priority indicator based on TSF with higher priority indicator corresponding to earlier TSF (higher TSF), par 0067 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the first communication device as taught by Patil’341 into that of Almeida’418 modified by Kasslin’811. The motivation would have been to enable devices receiving the schedule to select from among a number of proposed many-to-many schedules received from other devices ( 0065 ). Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Almeida’418 modified by Kasslin’811 discloses the first communication device of claim 2 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ). Almeida’418 and Kasslin’811 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein in the event that at least one priority of the at least one communication device is lower than priorities of other communication devices among the plurality of communication devices, the control information is for controlling the at least one communication device to skip transmitting the at least one TSF timer value within a predetermined time interval. However Patil’341 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 2A, multiple wireless devices in a NAN cluster, par 0045 ) discloses: wherein in the event that at least one priority of the at least one communication device is lower than priorities of other communication devices ( Fig. 2A, STAs with corresponding priority indicators can be equated to priorities of other communication devices in many-to-many multicast schedule can be equated to priorities of other communication devices, par 0067 ) among the plurality of communication devices ( when schedule request for many-to-many multicast schedule with priority indicator from wireless device is lower than priority of wireless devices receiving the schedule request, par 0012, 0092 ), the control information ( schedule rejection message can be equated to control information, par 0012 ) is for controlling the at least one communication device to skip transmitting the at least one TSF timer value within a predetermined time interval ( see, STA (sent schedule request) won’t send change schedule message with TSF during subsequent slot if receiving rejection message, and rejection message generated by any other STA(s) with higher priority, par 0012, 0093, 0131 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the first communication device as taught by Patil’341 into that of Almeida’418 modified by Kasslin’811. The motivation would have been to enable devices receiving the schedule to select from among a number of proposed many-to-many schedules received from other devices ( 0065 ). Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Almeida’418 modified by Kasslin’811 discloses the first communication device of claim 2 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ). Almeida’418 and Kasslin’811 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein in the event that at least one priority of the at least one communication device is lower than priorities of other communication devices among the plurality of communication devices ( when schedule request for many-to-many multicast schedule with priority indicator from other wireless device is lower than priority of other wireless devices receiving the schedule request, par 0012, 0092 ), the control information is for controlling the at least one communication device to transmit the at least one TSF timer value within a time interval increased relative to a predetermined time interval. However Patil’341 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 2A, multiple wireless devices in a NAN cluster, par 0045 ) discloses: wherein in the event that at least one priority ( priority or IV of STA can be equated to priority of communication device, par 0086 ) of the at least one communication device ( priority of STA requesting scheduling change can be equated to priority of the at least one communication device, par 0092 ) is lower than priorities of other communication devices among the plurality of communication devices ( priority of STA requesting scheduling change lower than priority of STA(s) who can reject the schedule change request, par 0092 ), the control information ( reject message, par 0092 ) is for controlling the at least one communication device to transmit the at least one TSF timer value ( TSF (first timestamp) in updated schedule can be equated to TSF timer value, par 0056 ) within a time interval increased ( updated schedule time period (or schedule epoch) in schedule update due to schedule change can be equated to time interval increased, par 0074 ) relative to a predetermined time interval ( see, STAs with higher priority (IV) send rejection message to STA with lower priority in order to reject schedule change request and thus will not send TSF in schedule update using updated schedule time period, par 0056, 0074, 0092. Noted, schedule time period (or schedule epoch) including one or more lifetime values, and lifetime value (defined in a NAN standard) can be equated to predetermined time interval, par 0012, 0074. Noted further, schedule time period (or schedule epoch) including one lifetime value and thus schedule change for schedule time period would be only time interval increased, par 0012, 0074 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the first communication device as taught by Patil’341 into that of Almeida’418 modified by Kasslin’811. The motivation would have been to enable devices receiving the schedule to select from among a number of proposed many-to-many schedules received from other devices ( 0065 ). Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Almeida’418 modified by Kasslin’811 discloses the first communication device of claim 2 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ). Almeida’418 and Kasslin’811 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein in the event that at least one priority of the at least one communication device is higher than priorities of other communication devices among the plurality of communication devices ( Fig. 6, STA as schedule owner with highest priority than other STAs, par 0116 ), the control information ( change schedule request from STA other than schedule owner can be equated to control information, par 0114 ) is for controlling the at least one communication device ( STA as schedule owner can be equated to at least one communication device, par 0114 ) to transmit the at least one TSF timer value ( TSF (first timestamp) in updated schedule can be equated to TSF timer value, par 0056 ) within a time interval decreased ( updated schedule time period (or schedule epoch) in schedule update due to schedule change can be equated to time interval decreased, par 0074 ) relative to a predetermined time interval (see, other STA (with lower priority than schedule owner STA) sends change schedule request to schedule owner STA with highest priority in order to request schedule change and thus control to send TSF in schedule update using updated schedule time period, par 0056, 0074, 0092. Noted, schedule time period (or schedule epoch) including one or more lifetime values, and lifetime value (defined in a NAN standard) can be equated to predetermined time interval, par 0012, 0074 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the first communication device as taught by Patil’341 into that of Almeida’418 modified by Kasslin’811. The motivation would have been to enable devices receiving the schedule to select from among a number of proposed many-to-many schedules received from other devices ( 0065 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida’418 in view of Sherman et al (US20070014269A1) . Regarding claim 7 (Original), Almeida’418 discloses the first communication device of claim 1 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ). Almeida’418 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the at least one communication device is the plurality of communication devices, and wherein the communication information is for controlling the plurality of communication devices to adjust their respective TSF timer values into a common TSF timer value. However Sherman’269 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 2, WLAN mesh network comprises a plurality of MPs, a plurality of MAPs and a plurality of STAs, par 0013 ) discloses: wherein the at least one communication device is the plurality of communication devices ( see, Fig. 2, each MP in MPs, par 0030 ), and wherein the communication information is for controlling the plurality of communication devices to adjust their respective TSF timer values into a common TSF timer value ( see, all MPs adjust their TSF to the highest (fastest) TSF through received TSF in beacons from their neighbors, par 0030, 0034. Noted, highest (fastest) TSF can be equated to common TSF timer value, par 0030 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the first communication device as taught by Sherman’269 into that of Almeida’418. The motivation would have been to provide a uniform time base for mesh points in a WLAN mesh based network ( abstract ). Regarding claim 8 (Original), Almeida’418 discloses the first communication device of claim 7 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ). Almeida’418 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the common TSF timer value is greater than or equal to a maximum TSF timer value among the plurality of TSF timer values. However Sherman’269 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 2, WLAN mesh network comprises a plurality of MPs, a plurality of MAPs and a plurality of STAs, par 0013 ) discloses: wherein the common TSF timer value is greater than or equal to a maximum TSF timer value among the plurality of TSF timer values ( see, all MPs adjust their TSF to the highest (fastest) TSF through received TSF in beacons from their neighbors (and thus common TSF is equal to maximum TSF), par 0030, 0034 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the first communication device as taught by Sherman’269 into that of Almeida’418. The motivation would have been to provide a uniform time base for mesh points in a WLAN mesh based network ( abstract ). Regarding claim 11 (Original), Almeida’418 discloses the second communication device of claim 10 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ), wherein performing the operation comprises. Almeida’418 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: skipping transmitting the TSF timer values within a predetermined time interval (see, suspending the TSF for a period of time, par 0097); transmitting the TSF timer values within a time interval increased relative to the predetermined time interval; or transmitting the TSF timer values within a time interval decreased relative to the predetermined time interval. However Sherman’269 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 2, WLAN mesh network comprises a plurality of MPs, a plurality of MAPs and a plurality of STAs, par 0013 ) discloses: skipping transmitting the TSF timer values ( TSF advertised in beacon, par 0034 ) within a predetermined time interval ( see, MP not to beacon with TSF for a predetermined number of DTIM intervals, par 0034, 0088 ); transmitting the TSF timer values ( TSF advertised in beacon, par 0034 ) within a time interval increased relative to the predetermined time interval ( see, MP selects beacon interval (TBTT offset) and DTIM period that conforms to the mesh DTIM interval to avoid beacon collisions, and set its MP DTIM period to one (attempt to beacon only once every DTIM interval) from original three (when MP initially joins mesh), par 0082-0083, 0088. Noted, beacon 3 times every DTIM interval changed to beacon only once every DTIM interval means time interval increased from 1/3 DTIM interval to 1 DTIM interval relative to DTIM interval, par 0077, 0082, 0088. Noted further, All MPs in a mesh share a common DTIM interval, mesh DTIM interval of 300 time units (TUs), and thus DTIM interval predetermined for new MP join mesh network, par 0082, abstract ); or transmitting the TSF timer values ( TSF advertised in beacon, par 0034 ) within a time interval decreased relative to the predetermined time interval ( see, MP selects values of the beacon interval and MP DTIM period different from the ones advertised by MPs belonging to the mesh, and thus new DTIM period can be smaller or higher comparing with old DTIM period before selection, and thus transmitting within time interval increased or decreased relative to DTIM interval, par 0034, 0077, 0082 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the second communication device as taught by Sherman’269 into that of Almeida’418. The motivation would have been to provide a uniform time base for mesh points in a WLAN mesh based network ( abstract ). Regarding claim 12 (Original), Almeida’418 discloses the second communication device of claim 10 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ). Almeida’418 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein performing the operation comprises: adjusting the TSF timer values into a target TSF timer value as indicated by the control information; and transmitting the target TSF timer value within a predetermined time interval. However Sherman’269 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 2, WLAN mesh network comprises a plurality of MPs, a plurality of MAPs and a plurality of STAs, par 0013 ) discloses: adjusting the TSF timer values into a target TSF timer value ( highest (fastest) TSF can be equated to target TSF timer value, abstract ) as indicated by the control information ( see, each MP adopts highest (fastest) TSF by comparing TSF timer value in beacon from neighbor MPs, abstract ); and transmitting the target TSF timer value within a predetermined time interval ( see, each MP transmits its adopted highest TSF in beaconing interval, par 0033. Noted, AP defines transmission of beacons for entire BSS according to aBeaconPeriod attribute within the AP and thus predetermined beaconing interval for STA, par 0006 ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the second communication device as taught by Sherman’269 into that of Almeida’418. The motivation would have been to provide a uniform time base for mesh points in a WLAN mesh based network ( abstract ). Regarding claim 13 (Original), Almeida’418 discloses the second communication device of claim 12 ( see, Fig. 4A and 7-8, inter-AP negotiating about the CP timing among the APs in overlapped coverage area, par 0024, 0045, 0057 ). Almeida’418 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the target TSF timer value is greater than or equal to the TSF timer values of the second communication device. However Sherman’269 from the same field of endeavor ( see, Fig. 2, WLAN mesh network comprises a plurality of MPs, a plurality of MAPs and a plurality of STAs, par 0013 ) discloses: wherein the target TSF timer value ( highest (fastest) TSF can be equated to target TSF timer value, abstract ) is greater than or equal to the TSF timer values of the second communication device ( see, each MP adopts highest (fastest) TSF by comparing TSF timer value in beacon from neighbor MPs, abstract ). In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the second communication device as taught by Sherman’269 into that of Almeida’418. The motivation would have been to provide a uniform time base for mesh points in a WLAN mesh based network ( abstract ) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshikawa et al (US20190028875A1) discloses: Since the STA 101 operates in the anchor master role in the NAN cluster 106 , it transmits, to a nearby terminal, the discovery beacon containing the value of the master preference of the STA 101 (S 704 ). The STA 100 reads values indicated by the master preferences or the like from the discovery beacons received from the NAN clusters 105 and 106 , and calculates a CG (Cluster Grade). The CG is information used to select a cluster which a terminal that has detected a plurality of clusters is to join. The CG is calculated by: CG=2̂64* A 1+ A 2 A 1=master preference of anchor master A 2=8 octets of TSF value (3) (par 0061); For the value of the CG, the value of the master preference of the anchor master is prioritized over the TSF value , as described above. Thus, the STA 100 decides to join the NAN cluster 106 in which the master preference of the anchor master is larger. As described above, the STA 100 can receive the information obtained by reflecting the number of terminals which have transmitted the sync beacons, and decide to join the NAN cluster in which the number is larger (par 0062); Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2844. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:30pm. 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, KWANG Yao can be reached on (571)272-3182. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /XUAN LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 2 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 3 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 4 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 5 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 6 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 7 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 8 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 9 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 10 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 11 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 12 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 13 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 14 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 15 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 16 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 17 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 18 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/615,160 Page 19 Art Unit: 2473
Prosecution Insights