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 .
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 1-4, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al. (US 2022/0209825 A1) in view of Fujimoto (US 2022/0150162 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chitrakar discloses a communication device (Master AP) comprising a signal processing unit that divides shared data (e.g. fig. 5B, paragraph [0079], data frame 550 divided into or composed A-MPDU subframes)to be shared with another communication device for each information type in the shared data in order to perform cooperative transmission to a communication terminal (figs. 13-33; e.g. paragraph [0116]-[0132]; [0068]; [0110]; and so on, illustrating that the Master AP shares shared A-MPDU data with the cooperating Slaves AP1 and AP2 to transmit to a Target STA), and generates a data unit for transmission in a transmission path (e.g. paragraph [0126]; [0169]-[0171]; [0109]; [0064]; [0060]; and etc., transmitting the data unit or MPDUs to the Slave APs and to Target STA).
Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose the generated data unit is less than or equal to a maximum transmission unit.
Fujimoto teaches the generated data unit is less than or equal to a maximum transmission unit (paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the generated data unit is less than or equal to a maximum transmission unit as taught by Fujimoto into Chitrakar in order to reduce congestion and dropping of data packets.
Regarding claim 13, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1. The claim is a mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding communication method, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 14 and 17, Chitrakar discloses a communication device (280 and/or 282) and method comprising a signal processing unit that divides shared data (e.g. fig. 5B, paragraph [0079], data frame 550 divided into or composed A-MPDU subframes) to be shared with another communication device for each information type in the shared data in order to perform cooperative transmission to a communication terminal (figs. 13-33; e.g. paragraph [0116]-[0131]; [0068]; [0110]; and so on, illustrating the Master AP shares shared A-MPDU data with the cooperating Slaves AP1 and AP2 to transmit to a Target STA), and recovers the shared data from a data unit generated by using the divided shared data (e.g. paragraph [0075]-[0076]; [0081]-[0082]; [0087]; [0103]-[0109]; [0123]-[0126]; [0131]-[0133]; [0146]-[0165]; [0169]-[0171]; [0109]; [0064]; [0060]; and etc., explaining the successfully received shared data is received or de-encapsulated using the divided or composed data units or MPDUs).
Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose the generated data unit is less than or equal to a maximum transmission unit in a transmission path.
Fujimoto teaches the data unit being less than or equal to a maximum transmission unit in a transmission path (paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the generated data unit is less than or equal to a maximum transmission unit in a transmission path as taught by Fujimoto into Chitrakar in order to reduce congestion and dropping of data packets.
Regarding claim 2, Chitrakar further discloses comprising a communication control unit that notifies the another communication device of information indicating a method of dividing header information included in the shared data (e.g. paragraph [0117]-[0121]; [0123]-[0125]; [0128]-[0132]; and so on).
Regarding claim 3, Chitrakar discloses wherein the signal processing unit divides the shared data into at least a part of the header information and payload information of the shared data (figs. 13-33; e.g. paragraph [0116]-[0132]; [0068]; [0109]-[0111]; [0066]-[0068]; [0083]-[0084]; [0101]-[0102]; and so on).
Regarding claim 4, Chitrakar discloses wherein the signal processing unit divides the header information into information common to a plurality of the data units to be concatenated and individual information by the plurality of data units to be concatenated (figs. 5B, 8, 11-18, 25, 30; e.g. paragraph [0117]-[0121]; [0123]-[0125]; [0128]-[0132]; [0084]-[0085]; and so on).
Regarding claim 10-11, Chitrakar discloses wherein the signal processing unit generates the data unit by adding header information for cooperation to the divided shared data, and wherein the header information for cooperation includes at least one of an information type and a sequence number of the shared data (paragraph [0067]-[0070]; [0084]; [0090]; [0095]-[0102]; [0109]-[0112]; [0117]-[0125]; [0129]-[0137]; and so on).
Regarding claim 12, Chitrakar discloses wherein the communication control unit performs control to transmit a signal requesting the another communication device to delete the shared data from a memory (paragraph [0176]-[0181]; [0188]; [0193]-[0200]; and so on).
Regarding claim 16, Chitrakar discloses wherein the signal processing unit responds with information regarding the data unit that has been successfully received on a basis of a sequence number in header information for cooperation of the data unit generated by adding the header information for cooperation to the divided shared data (paragraph [0087]; [0144]-[0145]; [0149]-[0155]; [0159]-[0160]; [0167]; [0177]-[0178]; [0222]; and so on).
Regarding claim 18 and 20, Chitrakar discloses a communication terminal (282) and method comprising a communication control unit that performs control to transmit an Ack to a designated destination when cooperative transmission packets transmitted from a plurality of communication devices are received (e.g. paragraph [0087]; [0149]-[0160]; [0167]-[0174]; [0183]-[0185]; and etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Chitrakar discloses wherein the communication control unit performs control to transmit the Ack to the designated destination among the plurality of communication devices (e.g. paragraph [0087]; [0149]-[0160]; [0167]-[0174]; [0183]-[0185]; and etc.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Fujimoto, and further in view of Ko et al. (US 2023/0276415 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as applied above, Chitrakar discloses wherein the communication control unit transmits data to the another communication device. Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose the unit notifies the another communication device of a method of generating or dividing an error correction code.
Ko teaches the unit notifies the another communication device of a method of generating or dividing an error correction code (paragraph [0164]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the unit notifies the another communication device of a method of generating or dividing an error correction code as taught by Ko into Chitrakar in order to reduce communication error and improve security of the data.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Fujimoto and Ko, and further in view of Yonge, III et al. (US 2014/0192641 A1 hereinafter Yonge).
Regarding claim 6, as applied above, Chitrakar discloses wherein the communication control unit divides header separately from payload information of the shared data. However, Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose the communication control unit divides the error correction code separately from payload information of the shared data.
Yonge teaches the communication control unit divides the error correction code separately from payload information of the shared data (paragraph [0053]-[0055]; [0090]; [0109]; [0115]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the communication control unit divides the error correction code separately from payload information of the shared data as taught by Yonge into Chitrakar in order to minimize interference and to increase efficiency.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Fujimoto and Ko, and further in view of Callard et al. (US 2014/0140451 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as applied above, Chitrakar discloses the communication control unit. However, Chitrakar does not disclose wherein the communication control unit requests the another communication device to generate the error correction code.
Callard teaches wherein the communication control unit requests the another communication device to generate the error correction code (paragraph [0034]-[0036]; [0042]; [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the communication control unit requests the another communication device to generate the error correction code as taught by Callard into Chitrakar in order to improve resource consumption and quality of service.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Fujimoto, and further in view of Ho et al. (US 2010/0135212 A1).
Regarding claim 8-9, as applied above, Chitrakar discloses divisions of the shared data. However, Chitrakar does not disclose wherein the communication control unit notifies the another communication device of a total number of divisions of the shared data, and wherein as the total number of divisions, a total number of divisions of the header information and a total number of divisions of payload information of the shared data are notified.
Ho teaches wherein the communication control unit notifies the another communication device of a total number of divisions of the shared data, and wherein as the total number of divisions, a total number of divisions of the header information and a total number of divisions of payload information of the shared data are notified (paragraph [0067]-[0073]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the communication control unit notifies the another communication device of a total number of divisions of the shared data, and wherein as the total number of divisions, a total number of divisions of the header information and a total number of divisions of payload information of the shared data are notified as taught by Ho into Chitrakar in order to reduce wasting available capacity and to improve efficiency of processing of the data.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Fujimoto, and further in view of Diener et al. (US 2013/0326303 A1).
Regarding claim 15, as applied above, Chitrakar discloses signal processing unit. Chitrakar does not disclose wherein the signal processing unit calculates an error correction code in response to a request from the another communication device and adds the error correction code to the data unit.
Diener teaches wherein the signal processing unit calculates an error correction code in response to a request from the another communication device and adds the error correction code to the data unit (paragraph [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the signal processing unit calculates an error correction code in response to a request from the another communication device and adds the error correction code to the data unit as taught by Diener into Chitrakar in order to improve rate of decoding and to reduce error.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights