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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are examined according to MPEP 2111.04, Contingent Limitations. The claims contain two contingent limitations such as step A: in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a transmission power density, transmit a first frame in a first frequency band and step B: in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a transmission power density, transmit a second frame which is a duplicate of the first frame in a second frequency band while transmitting the first frame in the first frequency band. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In the examination of this application, only step A or step B is addressed when the condition(s) occurs for the claimed limitations of step A or step B (for example: step A: in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a transmission power density or Step B: in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a transmission power density). If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra et al. (Pub. No.: US 2005/0143119; hereinafter Chandra) in view of Cao et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0391961; hereinafter Cao).
Regarding claim 1, Chandra discloses a terminal apparatus comprising: determination circuitry (see para. 0023, a WTRU includes a processor) configured to determine a target of transmission power regulation based on a beacon frame (see para. 0018, 0023, 0034, …a local power constraint element is sent in a beacon frame by all APs and the receiver is preferably configured to receive a broadcast of a general power constraint message from an access point (AP) of the wireless network).
Chandra does not disclose the claimed features of: regarding claim 1, a transmitter configured to: in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a transmission power density, transmit a first frame in a first frequency band, and in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a transmission power density, transmit a second frame which is a duplicate of the first frame in a second frequency band while transmitting the first frame in the first frequency band.
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a transmitter configured to: in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a transmission power density, transmit a first frame in a first frequency band (see para. 0045, For wireless devices operating in frequency bands less than 6 GHz, there may be no power spectrum density (PSD) limit for wireless transmissions…), and in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a transmission power density, transmit a second frame which is a duplicate of the first frame in a second frequency band while transmitting the first frame in the first frequency band.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chandra, and have the features, as taught by Cao, to increase the power of PPDUs transmitted in PSD limited transmissions may allow wireless devices to achieve longer range transmission in frequency bands with a PSD limit and may further enable wireless communications to be performed more efficiently, as discussed by Cao (para. 0047).
Chandra does not disclose the claimed features as recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, Cao discloses wherein the transmitter: in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a total transmission power, transmits a third frame in a third frequency band (see para. 0045, wireless devices operating in frequency bands less than 6 GHz), and in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a total transmission power, transmits the third frame in a fourth frequency band that is narrower than the third frequency band.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chandra, and have the features, as taught by Cao, to increase the power of PPDUs transmitted in PSD limited transmissions may allow wireless devices to achieve longer range transmission in frequency bands with a PSD limit and may further enable wireless communications to be performed more efficiently, as discussed by Cao (para. 0047).
Regarding claim 7, Chandra discloses a transmission method, comprising: determining a target of transmission power regulation based on a beacon frame (see para. 0018, 0023, 0034, …a local power constraint element is sent in a beacon frame by all APs and the receiver is preferably configured to receive a broadcast of a general power constraint message from an access point (AP) of the wireless network).
Chandra does not disclose the claimed features of: regarding claim 7, in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a transmission power density, transmitting a first frame in a first frequency band, and in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a transmission power density, transmitting a second frame which is a duplicate of the first frame in a second frequency band while transmitting the first frame in the first frequency band.
Regarding claim 7, Cao discloses in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a transmission power density, transmitting a first frame in a first frequency band (see para. 0045, For wireless devices operating in frequency bands less than 6 GHz, there may be no power spectrum density (PSD) limit for wireless transmissions…), and in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a transmission power density, transmitting a second frame which is a duplicate of the first frame in a second frequency band while transmitting the first frame in the first frequency band.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chandra, and have the features, as taught by Cao, to increase the power of PPDUs transmitted in PSD limited transmissions may allow wireless devices to achieve longer range transmission in frequency bands with a PSD limit and may further enable wireless communications to be performed more efficiently, as discussed by Cao (para. 0047).
Regarding claim 8, Chandra discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a transmission program used in a terminal apparatus, the program causing a computer (see para. 0005, 0023, a WTRU (ex: a computer) is well known to have a memory to stores programs to be executed by a computer) to: determining a target of transmission power regulation based on a beacon frame (see para. 0018, 0023, 0034, …a local power constraint element is sent in a beacon frame by all APs and the receiver is preferably configured to receive a broadcast of a general power constraint message from an access point (AP) of the wireless network).
Chandra does not disclose the claimed features of: regarding claim 8, in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a transmission power density, transmitting a first frame in a first frequency band, and in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a transmission power density, transmitting a second frame which is a duplicate of the first frame in a second frequency band while transmitting the first frame in the first frequency band.
Regarding claim 8, Cao discloses in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is not a transmission power density, transmitting a first frame in a first frequency band (see para. 0045, For wireless devices operating in frequency bands less than 6 GHz, there may be no power spectrum density (PSD) limit for wireless transmissions…), and in a case where it is determined that the target of regulation is a transmission power density, transmitting a second frame which is a duplicate of the first frame in a second frequency band while transmitting the first frame in the first frequency band.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chandra, and have the features, as taught by Cao, to increase the power of PPDUs transmitted in PSD limited transmissions may allow wireless devices to achieve longer range transmission in frequency bands with a PSD limit and may further enable wireless communications to be performed more efficiently, as discussed by Cao (para. 0047).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra et al. (Pub. No.: US 2005/0143119; hereinafter Chandra) in view of Cao et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0391961; hereinafter Cao) and further in view of Rehm (Pub. No.: US 2014/0225458; hereinafter Rehm).
Chandra and Cao do not disclose the claimed features as recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, Rehm discloses wherein the fourth frequency band is included in the third frequency band (see para. 0007, …for narrow frequency ranges within a frequency band that require much lower power level limits).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chandra and Cao, and have the features, as taught by Rehm, in order to optimize the efficiency of the wireless power transmission link, as discussed by Rehm (para. 0049).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra et al. (Pub. No.: US 2005/0143119; hereinafter Chandra) in view of Cao et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0391961; hereinafter Cao) and further in view of Zhou et al. (Patent No.: US 9,560,545; hereinafter Zhou).
Chandra and Cao do not disclose the claimed features as recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, Zhou discloses wherein the number of first subcarriers in the fourth frequency band is smaller than the number of second subcarriers in the third frequency band (see col. 10 lines 46 – 60, the first portion may be based on the utilization of the first frequency band… the first portion may comprise a smaller portion of the second frequency band (e.g., smaller number of subframes, smaller number of subcarriers).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chandra and Cao, and have the features, as taught by Zhou, in order to provide for a system that efficiently allocates wireless spectrum to access node 206 and relay node 208 may provide enhanced services to wireless devices using communication system 200, as discussed by Zhou (col. 4 lines 47 - 52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anh Ngoc M Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 270-5139. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, from 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kwang Bin 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.
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 .
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ANH NGOC M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473