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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3,5-10,14 and 18 have been amended. Claims 4 and 13 have been canceled in this amendment. New Claims 19-22 have been added in this amendment.
Claims 1-3,5-12 and 14-22 are pending in this application, with claims 1 and 10 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to nonstatutory double patenting rejection have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1,3,5-7,10-11,13-15,17,19 and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2017/0019785 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Liu”) in view of Abouelseoud et al. (US 2019/0373439 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Abouelseoud”) and further in view of CHERIAN et al. (US 2019/0037595 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Cherian”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Liu discloses a Access point (AP) multi-band that is capable of operating on multiple bands including a single frequency band and non-Access Point (non-AP) multi-band apparatus (Liu Fig.7 Para[0130] A STA (i.e. Non-AP multi-band apparatus) and multi-band AP) and a method comprising: transmit by non-AP and receive by AP an Association Request frame to an Access Point (AP) multi-band apparatus over the single frequency band (Liu Fig.7 Para[0130-132] The STA sends Association requests with multiband IEs. The information for multiple bands exchanged on a current band (i.e. single band)), the Association Request frame indicating a plurality of frequency bands requested for a multi-band setup for simultaneous communication on the multiple bands including the single frequency band (Liu Fig.7 Para[0130-132] Each multiband IE of the IEs (i.e. plurality of bands) provides information for each band supported by the STA).
Liu does not explicitly disclose receive by non-AP and sent from the AP multi-band apparatus an Association Response frame over the single frequency band, the Association Response frame indicating frequency band(s) that are successfully accepted among the multiple bands.
However, Abouelseoud from the same field of invention discloses receive by non-AP and sent from the AP multi-band apparatus an Association Response frame over the single frequency band (Abouelseoud Fig.30,35 Para[0176,0257-259] The association request and response messages are exchanged over lower band (i.e. single frequency band) between STA and AP), the Association Response frame indicating frequency band(s) that are successfully accepted among the multiple bands (Abouelseoud Fig.30,35 Para[0257-259] The discovery response (i.e. association response) message contains map indicating acceptance or rejection for a band).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu to have the feature of “receive by non-AP and sent from the AP multi-band apparatus an Association Response frame over the single frequency band, the Association Response frame indicating frequency band(s) that are successfully accepted among the multiple bands” as taught by Abouelseoud. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce the overhead and latencies involved with performing discoveries (Abouelseoud Para[0011]).
Liu in view of Abouelseoud does not explicitly disclose the AP multi-band apparatus maintains a single state variable for the non-AP multi-band apparatus.
However, Cherian from the same field of invention discloses the AP multi-band apparatus maintains a single state variable for the non-AP multi-band apparatus (Cherian Para[0088-90] A virtual MAC address (i.e. state variable) is used for multiple different bands of the station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu and Abouelseoud to have the feature of “the AP multi-band apparatus maintains a single state variable for the non-AP multi-band apparatus” as taught by Cherian. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce collision for uplink transmission (Cherian Para[0075]).
Specifically for claim 1, Liu discloses a device that includes a transmitter (Liu Fig.1 Para[0052,0054] A Transmitter), a receiver (Liu Fig.1 Para[0052,0054] A receiver) and a receiver (Liu Fig.1 Para[0051] A processor).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein the multi-band setup is operable to be performed on any of the multiple bands (Liu Para[0068-70] The multiple bands are used for communication).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein the Association Request frame includes a common information field and a plurality of band specific fields (Liu Fig.7 The association request contains RSN IE (i.e. common information) and multiple multiband IEs).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Cherian further discloses wherein the AP multi-band apparatus maintains a single Association ID (AID) for the multiple bands and maintains a single set of security keys for the multiple bands (Cherian Para[0095,0099] The single association (i.e. ID) and single security key is used for the multiple bands).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu and Abouelseoud to have the feature of “wherein the AP multi-band apparatus maintains a single Association ID (AID) for the multiple bands and maintains a single set of security keys for the multiple bands” as taught by Cherian. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce collision for uplink transmission (Cherian Para[0075]).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Abouelseoud, Cherian and further in view of Docomo (hereinafter referred to as “Docomo”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian does not explicitly disclose wherein a unified MAC address is used to identify the non-AP multi-band apparatus.
However, Docomo from a similar field of invention discloses wherein a unified MAC address is used to identify the non-AP multi-band apparatus (Docomo Page:3 The station uses same MAC address across all frequency bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu, Abouelseoud and Cherian to have the feature of “wherein a unified MAC address is used to identify the non-AP multi-band apparatus” as taught by Docomo. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide load management (Docomo Page:1).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Abouelseoud, Cherian and further in view of Fukumoto et al. (US 2012/0094706 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Fukumoto”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian does not explicitly disclose wherein a single Association ID (AID) is allocated to the non-AP multi-band apparatus.
However, Fukumoto from a similar field of invention discloses wherein a single Association ID (AID) is allocated to the non-AP multi-band apparatus (Fukumoto Para[0046] A one terminal identifier (i.e. association ID) is used to associate different bands to the terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu, Abouelseoud and Cherian to have the feature of “wherein a single Association ID (AID) is allocated to the non-AP multi-band apparatus” as taught by Fukumoto. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce unnecessary allocation of radio resources in multi band (Fukumoto Para[0010]).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Abouelseoud, Cherian and further in view of Cordeiro (US 2018/0035431 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Cordeiro”).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian does not explicitly disclose wherein a single MAC Service Access Point (SAP) is used to manage a plurality of band-specific MAC layers and a plurality of band-specific PHY layers.
However, Cordeiro from a similar field of invention discloses wherein a single MAC Service Access Point (SAP) is used to manage a plurality of band-specific MAC layers and a plurality of band-specific PHY layers (Cordeiro Fig.5 Para[0035] The common upper medium access control (i.e. SAP) is used to manage multiple band specific MAC and physical layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu, Abouelseoud and Cherian to have the feature of “wherein a single MAC Service Access Point (SAP) is used to manage a plurality of band-specific MAC layers and a plurality of band-specific PHY layers” as taught by Cordeiro. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a better quality service in multiband (Cordeiro Para[0011]).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Abouelseoud, Cherian and further in view of ABRAHAM et al. (US 2015/0289299 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Abraham”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian does not explicitly disclose wherein after the multi- band setup is established, the transmitter simultaneously transmits a plurality of signals over the single frequency band and the successfully accepted frequency band(s).
However, Abraham from a similar field of invention discloses wherein after the multi- band setup is established, the transmitter simultaneously transmits a plurality of signals over the single frequency band and the successfully accepted frequency band(s) (Abraham Fig.3A Para[0050] The simultaneous operation (i.e. transmission) on multiple bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu, Abouelseoud and Cherian to have the feature of “wherein after the multi- band setup is established, the transmitter simultaneously transmits a plurality of signals over the single frequency band and the successfully accepted frequency band(s)” as taught by Abraham. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide improved aggregate throughput (Abraham Para[0049]).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Abouelseoud, Cherian and further in view of SEOK (US 2016/0205615 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Seok”).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian does not explicitly disclose the AP receives a first Authentication frame from the non-AP multi-band apparatus on the single frequency band and the transmitter, in operation, transmits a second Authentication frame to the non-AP multi-band apparatus on the single frequency band in response to reception of the first Authentication frame before reception of the Association Request frame.
However, Seok from a similar field of invention discloses the AP receives a first Authentication frame from the non-AP multi-band apparatus on the single frequency band and the transmitter, in operation, transmits a second Authentication frame to the non-AP multi-band apparatus on the single frequency band in response to reception of the first Authentication frame before reception of the Association Request frame (Seok Para0074-77] An authentication request and response frames are exchanged between the AP and non-AP. The association happens after authentication steps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu, Abouelseoud and Cherian to have the feature of “the AP receives a first Authentication frame from the non-AP multi-band apparatus on the single frequency band and the transmitter, in operation, transmits a second Authentication frame to the non-AP multi-band apparatus on the single frequency band in response to reception of the first Authentication frame before reception of the Association Request frame” as taught by Seok. The suggestion/motivation would have been to supporting multiple bands to accurately and efficiently perform scanning in a WLAN system (Seok Para[0004]).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Liu in view of Abouelseoud and Cherian does not explicitly disclose wherein the multi-band setup comprises the reception of the first Authentication frame, transmission of the second Authentication frame, reception of the Association Request frame, transmission of the Association Response frame, and a security setup.
However, Seok from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the multi-band setup comprises the reception of the first Authentication frame, transmission of the second Authentication frame, reception of the Association Request frame, transmission of the Association Response frame, and a security setup (Seok Para0074-82] The authentication, association and security setup).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu, Abouelseoud and Cherian to have the feature of “wherein the multi-band setup comprises the reception of the first Authentication frame, transmission of the second Authentication frame, reception of the Association Request frame, transmission of the Association Response frame, and a security setup” as taught by Seok. The suggestion/motivation would have been to supporting multiple bands to accurately and efficiently perform scanning in a WLAN system (Seok Para[0004]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights