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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukla (10,993,164) in view of Lee et al. (12,402,045).
For claims 1, 9, 17, Shukla teaches a method and system (abstract, background, summary and claims) comprising:
sending a pre-association request, by a first network device (col. 2, line 55 – col. 3, line 35; PREQ from originator), to a second network device, inquiring about a capacity of the second network device (col. 3, lines 35-67; path availability) to support a peer-to- peer (P2P) (col. 6, lines 15-40) communication within a network (col. 5, line 40 – col. 6, line 15);
receiving a pre-association response from the second network device (col. 2, line 55 – col. 3, line 35; PREP as response), confirming the capacity of the second network device to support the P2P communication (col. 3, lines 35-67; path availability);
sending an association request, by the first network device, to the second network device (col. 17, lines 15-65);
receiving an association response from the second network device (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 50);
confirming a connection between the first and second network devices within the network (col. 18, lines 50-60); and
conducting the P2P communication, by the first network device, with a third network device (col. 6, lines 40-55).
Shukla does not expressly disclose using network resources allocated for the P2P communication by the second network device. Lee teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (Table 4; col. 18, line 55 – col. 19, line 35). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added improved service providing (col. 1, lines 20-45).
For claims 2, 10, Shukla teaches that the second network device comprises an access point (col. 7, lines 30-55).
For claims 3, 11, Shukla teaches that the first network device comprises a station (STA) that manages the P2P communication (col. 2, line 5 – col. 3, line 20), and the first network device is within a coverage area of the second network device (col. 6, line 55 – col. 8, line 5).
For claims 5, 13, 19, Shukla teaches that the network resources allocated for the P2P communication are determined by the second network device, based on an assessment of a current operational load of the second network device (col. 6, line 55 – col. 8, line 45), considering at least one of (i) a number of stations (STAs) connected to the second network device (col. 12, line 50 – col. 13, line 40), (ii) an amount of data queued up at the second network device (N/A), (iii) an amount of data queued up at the connected STAs (N/A), (iv) a signal strength between the second network device and the connected STAs (N/A).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 12, 15, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukla and Lee as applied to claims 1, 9, 17 above, and further in view of Featonby et al. (12,443,424).
For claims 4, 12, 18, Shukla and Lee do not expressly disclose the resource promise, though it does teach that the resources are focused on bandwidth. Featonby teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) where the pre-association response comprises network resources promised to be allocated for the P2P communication by the second network device (col. 4, lines 30-50), and the network resources comprise at least one of a bandwidth allocation (col. 5, lines 5-40) or a timeslot for channel usage (col. 6, lines 45-65). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Featonby in order to provide improvements to connections (col. 2, lines 15-45).
For claims 7, 15, 20, Featonby teaches further comprising:
while conducting the P2P communication, by the first network device, with the third network device, determining that the network resources allocated by the second network device are insufficient (col. 4, line 45 – col. 5, line 5); and
sending an extension request to the second network device, requesting additional network resources (col. 9, line 55 – col. 10, line 20).
For claims 8, 16, Featonby teaches further comprising:
receiving a second pre-association response from the second network device, indicating that the second network device does not have sufficient bandwidth to support the P2P communication (col. 4, line 45 – col. 5, line 5);
identifying a fourth network device (col. 22, lines 5-55); and
sending a second pre-association request, by the first network device, to a fourth network device, inquiring about a capacity of the fourth network device to support the P2P communication within the network (col. 9, line 55 – col. 10, line 20).
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukla and Lee as applied to claims 1, 9 above, and further in view of Seok (2014/0,192,777).
For claims 6, 14, Shulka and Lee do not expressly disclose the limitations. Seok teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes sending an action frame (Paras 66-69) to negotiate the network resources (Paras 70-71) promised to be allocated for the P2P communication by the second network device (Para 6). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Seok in order to provide improvements in communication with AP and STA (Paras 14-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445