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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 05/15/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure:
The language should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: Line 1, “Disclosed herein is” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The description of several Figures is identical, which is improper; see Specification, page 3, paragraphs [0018] - [0024], Figures 11-17. Each Figure needs to be described individually and uniquely, and, the descriptions of Figures may not be identical, they need to be different, from one another.
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 8, 14, 17 and 19 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.
“CTS” needs to be defined, spelled out, in the Claim 8 line 5, Claim 14 line 2, Claim 17 line 1, Claim 19 line 1:--clear-to-send--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (US 11683737 B1) in view of Lanante (US 20250317912 A1).
Examiner note: In the dependent Claims: Compact notation has been utilized, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature. The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Examiner note: both references teach the inventive concept. The inventive step utilizes the legacy Wi-Fi control signaling and utilizes a millimeter Wave for data transmission. The legacy Wi-Fi control signaling falls under resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1. Kulkarni teaches a method performed by a first wireless device in a wireless network to perform multi-channel operations (4:25-42), the method comprising: transmitting a cross-channel request-to-send (RTS) frame to a second wireless device in a first channel (14:49-62); receiving a cross-channel clear-to-send (CTS) frame from the second wireless device in the first channel (14:12-30); responsive to receiving the cross-channel CTS frame in the first channel, transmitting a data frame to the second wireless device in a second channel (16:38-47); and receiving a cross-channel acknowledgement (ACK) frame that acknowledges the data frame from the second wireless device in the first channel (16:4-18).
Kulkarni does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Kulkarni does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: a cross-channel request-to-send (RTS) frame, a cross-channel clear-to-send (CTS) frame, cross-channel CTS frame, a cross-channel acknowledgement (ACK) frame that acknowledges.
Examiner note: both references teach the inventive concept. The inventive step utilizes the legacy Wi-Fi control signaling and utilizes a millimeter Wave for data transmission. The legacy Wi-Fi control signaling falls under resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art. A channel request-to-send (RTS) frame, a channel clear-to-send (CTS) frame, channel CTS frame, a channel acknowledgement (ACK) frame that acknowledges, are legacy Wi-Fi control signaling, and fall under resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art. RTS CTS ACK are in the 802.11 technical specification. See the IDS filed 05/15/2024.
The missing elements are disclosed by Lanante, a cross-channel frame, (Abstract: sub-7 GHz link, a cross-link Request to Send (XRTS) frame for reserving a mmWave link for transmission of a data frame, acknowledgment. FIG. 9, 16- 22. [0084] [0085] [0092] [0105] [0109] [0115] [0116] [0118]- [0122] [0129]- [0132] ).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Kulkarni (1:7-25, 3:44-5:6).
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 2. Kulkarni in view of Lanante teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first channel is a sub-7 Gigahertz (GHz) channel and the second channel is a millimeter wave (mmWave) channel (Abstract. In Kulkarni).
Claim 3. Kulkarni in view of Lanante teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting a CTS-to-self frame in the first channel before transmitting the cross-channel RTS frame to the second wireless device in the first channel ([0071] [0073] [0076] [0079] . In Lanante)(Examiner note: NAV and CTS-to-self are interrelated concepts).
Claim 4. Kulkarni in view of Lanante teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cross-channel RTS frame, the cross-channel CTS frame, and the cross-channel ACK frame are treated by legacy wireless devices as legacy control frames for the first channel and treated by non-legacy wireless devices as cross-channel control frames for the second channel ( [0043]. In Lanante).
Claim 5 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 1; with Claim 5 being directed at the corresponding receiving side; versus Claim 1 is directed at the corresponding transmitting side.
Claim 6 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 1; with the addition of:
Kulkarni does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: indicates a time at which the third wireless device is allowed to transmit data; receiving a data frame at the time indicated.
The missing elements are disclosed by Lanante (e.g. [0149]).
Claim 8 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 1; with the addition of:
Kulkarni does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: indicates a time at which the first wireless device is allowed to transmit data; transmitting a data frame at the time indicated.
The missing elements are disclosed by Lanante (e.g. [0149]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Kulkarni (1:7-25, 3:44-5:6).
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 9 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 1; with the addition of:
Kulkarni teaches a method performed by a first wireless device functioning as an access point (AP) in a wireless network to perform multi-channel operations (Abstract).
Kulkarni does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: transmitting a trigger frame to solicit an uplink transmission.
The missing elements are disclosed by Lanante (e.g. [0049]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Kulkarni (1:7-25, 3:44-5:6).
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 11 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 2.
Claim 12 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding elements in Claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding elements in Claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 3.
Claim 15 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding elements in Claim 1 and Claim 10.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Lanante as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Li (US 20250393036 A1).
Claim 16 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 1 and Claim 5; with the addition of:
Kulkarni does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: receiving channel low latency transmission, transmitting stop frame, receiving a LLT data frame.
The missing elements are disclosed by Li ([0143]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Li ([0003]- [0008]).
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 17 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 16.
Claim 18 is rejected substantially the same as Claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected substantially the same as Claim 18.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claims:
Huang (US 11272524 B2)
Claim 1
Fechtel (US 11751025 B2)
26:45-27:3; 45:4-13
CHEN (US 20160112970 A1)
Abstract [0033] [0043] [0057]
ANANTHANARAYANAN (US 20210345222 A1)
[0003] [0004] [0019] [0026] [0088]
Examiner note: this reference teaches the inventive concept.
Lanante (US 20250317912 A1)
Abstract, sub-7 GHz link, a cross-link Request to Send frame for reserving a mmWave link for transmission of a data frame. Examiner note: this reference teaches the inventive concept.
KIM (US 20230345535 A1)
[0222]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOOMAN HOUSHMAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT. 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, AYMAN ABAZA can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/H.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights