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 .
Claims 1, 15, 20 have been amended.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri et al. (US20110228666 herein after Barb) in view of Yaghoobi et al. (US20240306207 herein after Yag) further in view of Ajami et al (US20250016683).
Regarding claim 1, 20, Barb teaches A device, comprising: a processor ([0110] “A controller/processor 928 may direct the operation of various modules within base station 110 x); a network interface controller configured to provide access to a network ([0110] “Within base station 110 x, a receiver 912 may receive uplink signals transmitted by UEs for WAN communication. A transmitter 914 may transmit downlink signals to UEs for WAN communication”); and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor ([0110] “A controller/processor 928 may direct the operation of various modules within base station 110 x. A memory 930 may store data and program codes for base station 110 x”), wherein the memory comprises a peer-to-peer (P2P) connection logic that is configured to ([0110] “a design of a base station 110 x supporting P2P communication”):
receive, from a network device, a channel availability request for establishing a P2P connection ([0048] “The first UE may send a P2P connection request to its serving base station to ask for network assistance to establish P2P communication with the second UE (step 3). For example, the P2P connection request may ask for a frequency channel and/or other resources to use for P2P communication, (Examiner’s Note: P2p connection request == channel availability request , frequency channel to use is BRI as available channels, (Examiner’s Note: in specification defines network device as user device in [0039]);
determine, based on the channel availability request, one or more channels ([0052] “f P2P communication is selected for the UEs (as shown in FIG. 2), then the base station may select an unlicensed channel for P2P communication, e.g., based on the sensing results and/or other information available to the base station (step 10). The base station may then assign the selected unlicensed channel to the UEs for P2P communication (also step 10)”);
and transmit, to the network device, at least a list of the one or more channels selectable for establishing the P2P connection ([0052] “The base station may instruct the first and second UEs to establish P2P communication and may also provide the assigned unlicensed channel ( steps 11 a and 11 b)”).
Barb does not teach in a Wi-Fi extended spectrum, determine a usage schedule associated with a selected channel to determine whether the selected channel is available for a requested duration;
transmit an acknowledgement in response to a channel selection response,wherein the acknowledgement comprises an approval to utilize the selected channel for the P2P connection for the requested channel utilization duration.
Yag teaches in a Wi-Fi extended spectrum ([0046] “On the other hand, Standard Power mode permits devices to operate both indoors and outdoors but mandates the use of AFC to avoid disrupting existing users of the 6 GHz spectrum, such as broadcast and satellite services”, [0055] “In this case, client requests the channel availability and associated maximum permissible transmit power levels in Channel Usage Request frame by including Channel Usage element with the new value for “Peer-to-peer Channel-MaxPower” for Usage Mode and setting the Channel Entry field to 0”, (Examiner’s Note: 6GHZ ==Wifi extended spectrum).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barb to incorporate the teachings of Yag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize interference in a network.
Yao does not teach determine a usage schedule associated with a selected channel to determine whether the selected channel is available for a requested duration;
transmit an acknowledgement in response to a channel selection response, wherein the acknowledgement comprises an approval to utilize the selected channel for the P2P connection for the requested channel utilization duration.
Ajami teaches determine a usage schedule associated with a selected channel to determine whether the selected channel is available for a requested duration (Fig. 3 “304 Channel Usage Request”, [0038] “ non-AP STA 104 may indicate the lifetime of a requested P2P TWT agreement in the Timeout Interval Value field of a Timeout Interval Element (TIE) which the non-AP STA 104 includes in a Channel Usage Request frame (such as the Channel Usage Request frame 304 shown and described with reference to FIG. 3 ), and may set the corresponding Timeout Interval Type field to 5”);
transmit an acknowledgement in response to a channel selection response, wherein the acknowledgement comprises an approval to utilize the selected channel for the P2P connection for the requested channel utilization duration (Fig. 3 “306 Channel Usage Report”, “ACK”, [0038] “Timeout Interval Value field of a TIE in a Channel Usage Response frame (such as the Channel Usage Response frame 306 shown and described with reference to FIG. 3 ), Timeout Interval Value field of a TIE in a Channel Usage Response frame (such as the Channel Usage Response frame 306 shown and described with reference to FIG. 3 )”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination Barb, Yag to incorporate the teachings of Ajami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Barb teaches A device, comprising: a processor ([0109] “A controller/processor 824 may direct the operation of various modules); a network interface controller configured to provide access to a network ([0109] “Within UE 120 x, a receiver 812 may receive P2P signals transmitted by other UEs for P2P communication and may receive downlink signals transmitted by base stations for WAN communication. A transmitter 814 may transmit P2P signals to other UEs for P2P communication and may transmit uplink signals to base stations for WAN communication”); and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor ([0109] “A controller/processor 824 may direct the operation of various modules within UE 120 x. A memory 826 may store data and program codes for UE 120 x”), wherein the memory comprises a peer-to-peer (P2P) connection logic ([0109] “a design of a UE 120 x capable of P2P communication”) that is configured to:
transmit, to a network device, a channel availability request for establishing a P2P connection ([0048] “The first UE may send a P2P connection request to its serving base station to ask for network assistance to establish P2P communication with the second UE (step 3). For example, the P2P connection request may ask for a frequency channel and/or other resources to use for P2P communication, (Examiner’s Note: P2p connection request == channel availability request , frequency channel to use is BRI as available channels);
receive, from the network device, at least a list of one or more channels available ([0052] “The base station may instruct the first and second UEs to establish P2P communication and may also provide the assigned unlicensed channel ( steps 11 a and 11 b)”);
select at least one channel from the list of one or more channels; and establish the P2P connection on the at least one channel with a peer device ([0052] “The first and second UEs may receive the instructions from the base station and may establish P2P communication on the assigned unlicensed channel (step 12). The UEs may then communicate peer-to-peer on the assigned unlicensed channel (also step 12)”, [0092] “with the list of frequency channels being available for use for P2P communication by the first UE (block 512). The first UE may communicate peer-to-peer with at least one other UE on a first frequency channel in the list (block 514). The first UE may decide to perform handover from the first frequency channel to a second frequency channel in the list (block 516)”)).
Barb does not teach in a Wi-Fi extended spectrum.
Yag teaches in a Wi-Fi extended spectrum ([0046] “On the other hand, Standard Power mode permits devices to operate both indoors and outdoors but mandates the use of AFC to avoid disrupting existing users of the 6 GHz spectrum, such as broadcast and satellite services”, [0055] “In this case, client requests the channel availability and associated maximum permissible transmit power levels in Channel Usage Request frame by including Channel Usage element with the new value for “Peer-to-peer Channel-MaxPower” for Usage Mode and setting the Channel Entry field to 0”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barb to incorporate the teachings of Yag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize interference in a network.
Yag does not teach determine a usage schedule associated with a selected channel to determine whether the selected channel is available for a requested duration;
transmit an acknowledgement in response to a channel selection response, wherein the acknowledgement comprises an approval to utilize the selected channel for the P2P connection for the requested channel utilization duration.
Ajami teaches determine a usage schedule associated with a selected channel to determine whether the selected channel is available for a requested duration (Fig. 3 “304 Channel Usage Request”, [0038] “ non-AP STA 104 may indicate the lifetime of a requested P2P TWT agreement in the Timeout Interval Value field of a Timeout Interval Element (TIE) which the non-AP STA 104 includes in a Channel Usage Request frame (such as the Channel Usage Request frame 304 shown and described with reference to FIG. 3 ), and may set the corresponding Timeout Interval Type field to 5”);
transmit an acknowledgement in response to a channel selection response, wherein the acknowledgement comprises an approval to utilize the selected channel for the P2P connection for the requested channel utilization duration (Fig. 3 “306 Channel Usage Report”, “ACK”, [0038] “Timeout Interval Value field of a TIE in a Channel Usage Response frame (such as the Channel Usage Response frame 306 shown and described with reference to FIG. 3 ), Timeout Interval Value field of a TIE in a Channel Usage Response frame (such as the Channel Usage Response frame 306 shown and described with reference to FIG. 3 )”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination Barb, Yag to incorporate the teachings of Ajami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Barb does not teach wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to transmit power information associated with at least one of the one or more channels.
Yag teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to transmit power information associated with at least one of the one or more channels ([0056] “The Access Point uses 0 length for Channel Usage Elements field in Channel Usage Response and adds variable length Channel-MaxPower Element at the end of Channel Usage Response as illustrated in the FIG. 2B. Referring to FIG. 2B, there is shown a Channel Usage Response frame Action field format”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barb to incorporate the teachings of Yag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize interference in a network.
Regarding claim 16, Barb teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to release the at least one channel based on an expiration of an allocated utilization duration ([0059] “ a base station may employ a timeout procedure to detect dead P2P links. The base station may start a timer when the assigned unlicensed channel is sent to the first and second UEs in steps 11 a and 11 b in FIG. 2. The base station may release the assigned unlicensed channel when the timer expires, even if a P2P termination notification is not received from the UEs”).
Regarding claim 17, Barb teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to release the at least one channel based on the device crossing a geographical boundary associated with the at least one channel ([0042] “UEs located outside the coverage of base stations may desire to engage in P2P communication on an unlicensed channel. These UEs may operate on the unlicensed channel based on cognitive operations. In this case, the UEs may periodically sense the unlicensed channel, communicate on the unlicensed channel when no primary users are detected, and immediately give up the unlicensed channel if any primary user starts using the unlicensed channel”).
Regarding claim 19, Barb does not teach wherein the device and the peer device are each associated with a unique network device.
Yag teaches wherein the device and the peer device are each associated with a unique network device ([0042] “([0046] “On the other hand, Standard Power mode permits devices to operate both indoors and outdoors but mandates the use of AFC to avoid disrupting existing users of the 6 GHz spectrum, such as broadcast and satellite services”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barb to incorporate the teachings of Yag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize interference in a network.
Claim(s) 3-8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barb in view of Yag further in view of Ajami further in view of Chitraker (US20250294628 herein after Chit).
Regarding claim 3 Barb, Yag, Ajami does not teach wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to receive a channel selection response configured to indicate a selection of at least one channel of the one or more channels.
Chit teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to receive a channel selection response configured to indicate a selection of at least one channel of the one or more channels ([0063] “Non-AP STA 204, as a TDLS initiator STA, may seek permission from the AP 202 to use a different channel in the 6 GHz band for direct link communication with non-AP STA 206 by transmitting a TDLS Channel Use Permission Request frame 208 to the AP 202. The channel may for example be a channel in the U-NII-5 or the U-NII-7 sub-bands of the 6 GHz band that is different from the base channel in the 6 GHz band used for communication among the AP 202 and the STAs 204 and 206”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Barb, Yag, Ajami to incorporate the teachings of Chit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the utilization of the network.
Regarding claim 4, Barb, Yag, don’t teach wherein the channel selection response is further configured to indicate at least one of: a bandwidth utilization, a duration of utilization of the at least one channel, or an identifier of a peer device for establishing the P2P connection.
Ajami teaches wherein the channel selection response is further configured to indicate at least one of: a bandwidth utilization, a duration of utilization of the at least one channel ([0036] “The STA 104 can negotiate the terms (such as the scheduling and duration) of the TWT agreement with the AP 102, and the AP 102 may conclude the negotiation process by indicating acceptance or rejection of a proposed (such as by transmitting a Channel Usage response frame that includes an “Accept” or “Reject” indicator, or an alternate/suggested parameter, within a TWT element). Upon completion of a successful negotiation and setup of the TWT Agreement”), or an identifier of a peer device for establishing the P2P connection.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination Barb, Yag to incorporate the teachings of Ajami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Barb, Yag don’t teach wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to transmit an acknowledgement to the network device, and wherein the acknowledgement comprises an approval to utilize the at least one channel for the P2P connection.
Ajami teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to transmit an acknowledgement to the network device, and wherein the acknowledgement comprises an approval to utilize the at least one channel for the P2P connection (Fig. 3 “306 Channel Usage Report”, “ACK”, [0038] “Timeout Interval Value field of a TIE in a Channel Usage Response frame (such as the Channel Usage Response frame 306 shown and described with reference to FIG. 3 ), Timeout Interval Value field of a TIE in a Channel Usage Response frame (such as the Channel Usage Response frame 306 shown and described with reference to FIG. 3 )”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination Barb, Yag to incorporate the teachings of Ajami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Barb teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to set a coverage area for the at least one channel such that the network device is permitted to communicate on the at least one channel within the coverage area ([0046] “The base station may use the sensing results to determine whether the unlicensed channel can be assigned to P2P communication between UEs under the coverage of the base station. For example, the base station may not assign an unlicensed channel for P2P communication if a primary user and/or a secondary user is detected on the unlicensed channel. Sensing results may be used to improve selection and assignment of unlicensed channels for P2P communication, as described below”).
Regarding claim 7, Barb teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to communicate information associated with the coverage area to the network device ([0067] “a base station may maintain a list of active P2P links under its coverage. The base station may also store the unlicensed channel assigned to each P2P link, the location of each P2P link, etc. The base station may use the list of active P2P links and the associated assigned unlicensed channels and locations (if available) to ensure that different P2P links do not interfere one another. The base station may receive interference estimates periodically reported by UEs in the various P2P links and may select an unlicensed channel to assign to each P2P link by considering the interference estimates”).
Regarding claim 8, Barb teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to receive one or more management frames from the network device, and wherein at least one of the one or more management frames is configured to indicate one or more characteristics of an intended network traffic for the P2P connection ([0050] “The UEs may report the sensing results and possibly other pertinent information to the base station ( steps 8 a and 8 b). The sensing results may indicate whether a primary user and/or a secondary user was detected on each candidate unlicensed channel, the amount of interference on each candidate unlicensed channel, the channel quality of each candidate unlicensed channel, etc. The pertinent information may include the locations of the UEs, which may be determined based on positioning (e.g., GPS) capabilities of the UEs. The pertinent information may also include the received signal strength, or pathloss, or propagation delay measured by each UE (or one UE) for the other UE”).
Regarding claim 13, Barb does not teach wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to receive an indication of a power that the network device intends to utilize on the at least one channel.
Yag teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to receive an indication of a power that the network device intends to utilize on the at least one channel ([0046] “On the other hand, Standard Power mode permits devices to operate both indoors and outdoors but mandates the use of AFC to avoid disrupting existing users of the 6 GHz spectrum, such as broadcast and satellite services”, [0055] “In this case, client requests the channel availability and associated maximum permissible transmit power levels in Channel Usage Request frame by including Channel Usage element with the new value for “Peer-to-peer Channel-MaxPower” for Usage Mode and setting the Channel Entry field to 0”, (Examiner’s Note: 6GHZ ==Wifi extended spectrum).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barb to incorporate the teachings of Yag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize interference in a network.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barb in view of Yag, further in view of Ajami further in view of Chit further in view of Kandagadla et al. (US20170171895).
Regarding claim 9, Barb, Yag, Ajami Chit does not teach wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to predict a channel utilization value for the intended network traffic of the at least one channel.
Kandagadla teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to predict a channel utilization value for the intended network traffic of the at least one channel ([0007] “the AP may determine a bandwidth consumption of the wireless network, and establish the direct link when the amount of data traffic between the first STA and the second STA accounts for at least a threshold percentage of the bandwidth consumption”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Barb, Yag, Ajami, Chit to incorporate the teachings of Kandadla One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 10, Barb, Yag, Ajami Chit does not teach wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to compare the predicted channel utilization value with a threshold utilization value .
Kandagadla teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to compare the predicted channel utilization value with a threshold utilization value ([0007] “the AP may determine a bandwidth consumption of the wireless network, and establish the direct link when the amount of data traffic between the first STA and the second STA accounts for at least a threshold percentage of the bandwidth consumption”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Barb, Yag, Ajami, Chit to incorporate the teachings of Kandadla One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Barb, Yag, Ajami, Chit does not teach wherein, in response to the predicted channel utilization value being less than the threshold utilization value, the P2P connection logic is further configured to offer the at least one channel to one or more other network devices for concurrent P2P connection establishment.
Kandagadla teaches wherein, in response to the predicted channel utilization value being less than the threshold utilization value, the P2P connection logic is further configured to offer the at least one channel to one or more other network devices for concurrent P2P connection establishment ([0007] “the AP may determine a bandwidth consumption of the wireless network, and establish the direct link when the amount of data traffic between the first STA and the second STA accounts for at least a threshold percentage of the bandwidth consumption”, (Examiner’s Note: since the bandwith consumption is below threshold the AP establish the link between the two stations == to offer the at least one channel).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Barb, Yag, Ajami, Chit to incorporate the teachings of Kandadla One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Barb, Yag, Ajami, Chit does not teach wherein, in response to the predicted channel utilization value being greater than or equal to the threshold utilization value, the P2P connection logic is further configured to declare the at least one channel unavailable for an additional P2P connection.
Kandagadla teaches wherein, in response to the predicted channel utilization value being greater than or equal to the threshold utilization value, the P2P connection logic is further configured to declare the at least one channel unavailable for an additional P2P connection ([0037] “Thus, it may be preferable and/or more efficient to maintain all communications between the wireless stations STA1 and STA2 on the WLAN 150 as long as available bandwidth of the WLAN 150 exceeds a threshold level”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Barb, Yag, Ajami, Chit to incorporate the teachings of Kandadla One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the flexibility of the system.
Claim(s) 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barb in view of Yag further in view of Ajami further in view of Chit further in view of Cimpu et al. (US20200162929).
Regarding claim 14, Barb, Yag, Ajami, Chit don’t teach wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to: establish a radio frequency impact zone for the network device based on the indication of the power; and determine, based on the radio frequency impact zone, a threshold count of connected network device pairs allowed to coexist in a geographical area.
Cimpu teaches wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to: establish a radio frequency impact zone for the network device based on the indication of the power ([0041] “Geographical Area to be protected. Described as coordinates of polygons defining the boundaries of the DPA. These polygons are predefined and fixed in location”); and determine, based on the radio frequency impact zone, a threshold count of connected network device pairs allowed to coexist in a geographical area ([0041] “Maximum Allowed Aggregate Interference Level [e.g., in to-be-determined dBm] with a reliability of [e.g., 95%].Reliability is defined as the probability that aggregate interference from CBRS entities remains below the maximum allowed aggregate interference level for any protected point on and within the DPA”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Barb, Yag, Ajami, Chit to incorporate the teachings of Cimpu One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize interference.
Claim(s) 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barb in view of Yag further in view of Ajami, further in view of Henry et al. (US20210068076).
Regarding claim 18, Barb, Yag, Ajami, don’t teach wherein the P2P connection logic is further configured to: detect a location of the device; and determine whether the device has crossed the geographical boundary based on the detected location ([0092] “NAN group detection and channel interference remediation logic 190 may be configured to employ an iterative learning scheme to detect P2P groups that form as users move and connect to exchange to NAN”, [0066] “One way to avoid channel interference is to pre-emptively change the operating channel of an AP 125 that is nearby a predicted destination of a NAN group that happens to be on the same channel. In such a scenario, NAN group detection and channel interference remediation logic 190, predicts the destination of a NAN group and then causes any nearby APs 125 to change their channels”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Barb, Yag, to incorporate the teachings of Henry One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize interference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument 1
Nonetheless, without conceding the propriety of the rejections and the allegations of the Office Action, and, in the interest of compact prosecution, the independent claims have been amended to generally recite, inter alia: determining a usage schedule associated with a selected channel to determine whether the selected channel is available for a requested duration; and transmitting an acknowledgement in response to a channel selection response, wherein the acknowledgement comprises an approval to utilize the selected channel for the P2P connection for the requested channel utilization duration.
Examiner’s Response 1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See updated rejection above newly incorporated reference Ajami.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH TRAN-DANH FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3071. The examiner can normally be reached 10am -6 pm M-Th.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/K.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights