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 10/23/2025 07/28/2025 05/21/2024, 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 abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It 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: First line, “The present invention is concerned with” needs to 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following: Specification, page 7, paragraph [0052], group figures 9-13, together, which is improper. 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and its dependent claims, 23, 26 and 29 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the WiFi communication channel" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the wireless device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the wireless device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiency of the independent claim 11.
Claim 29 should depend on claim [16] 22. For proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11, 13, 15-17, 22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Merlin (US 20160014804 A1).
Claim 1. Merlin teaches a wireless device comprising: a communication processor; WiFi hardware operable to access a WiFi communication channel ([0064]); and a computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by the communications processor, cause the communication processor to ([0081], [0083]): execute, in a MAC layer of a communication protocol stack ([0095], [0113]), a channel-access scheduler that controls the WiFi hardware to access the WiFi communication channel by way of a TDMA channel-access method ([0065] [0072]).
Claim 2. Merlin teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the channel-access scheduler operates according to scheduling instructions, the scheduling instructions defined in a network data unit received by the wireless device over the WiFi communication channel ([0021] [0026] FIG. 10-11 [0077] [0105] [0106] [0115] [0121] [0132]).
Claim 4. Merlin teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the communication processor to: receive two or more frames over the WiFi communication channel; aggregate the received frames into an aggregated frame; and transmit the aggregated frame over the WiFi communication channel to multiple stations using a broadcast address ([0141] [0142]).
Claim 5. Merlin teaches the wireless device of claim 4, wherein the communication processor is configured to aggregate the received frames by: utilising the destination address of a first frame as the broadcast address; appending an aggregation identifier to the broadcast address; appending a first station flag to the aggregation identifier; appending the first frame to the aggregation identifier; and appending a second station flag to the first frame; and appending a second frame to the second station flag ([0120] Fig. 12-15 [0123]- [0126] [0130]- [0133] [0141]- [0142]).
Claim 6. Merlin teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the communication processor to: parse a frame received at the wireless device ([0141] - [0143]) (Examiner note: the reference teaches aggregation at the transmitter, because of the duality nature of communication systems, the reverse also takes place at the receiver: de-aggregation); determine whether the frame is an aggregated frame, wherein the communications processor determines whether the frame is an aggregated frame by parsing the frame for a broadcast address and an aggregation identifier ([0112] [0144]); and in the event that the frame is an aggregated frame, de-aggregate the aggregated frame by identifying a network address in the frame and discarding the remainder of the frame after the network address ([0130] [0131]).
Claims 11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected substantially the same as the corresponding elements in Claims 1-2 and 4-6.
Claims 22, 24 and 26 are rejected substantially the same as the corresponding elements in Claims 1-2 and 4-6.
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 3, 12, 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merlin as applied to claims 1, 11 and 22 above, and further in view of Rao (US 20170230841 A1).
Claim 3. Merlin teaches the wireless device claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the communication processor to: transmit a packet during a communication time slot allocated to the wireless device by the channel-access scheduler ([0065]) (Merlin also teaches [0093] acknowledgment (ACK) signals);
Merlin does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: determine whether an acknowledgment packet is received at the wireless device within a predetermined time; and in the absence of receipt of an acknowledgement packet within a predetermined time, retransmit the packet during two or more communication time slots allocated to the wireless device by the channel-access scheduler.
The missing elements are disclosed by Rao ([0025] acknowledgement timeout, slot size, DIFS, etc., are tweaked in order to account for longer propagation delays in long-range Wi-Fi).
(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 Rao, Abstract, [0004]- [0012].
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected substantially the same as the corresponding elements in Claim 3.
Claim 12. Merlin teaches the method of claim 11,
Merlin does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: wherein the WiFi access point is operably connected to a directional antenna, the channel-access scheduler controlling the WiFi access point to access the WiFi communication channel using the directional antenna.
The missing elements are disclosed by Rao ([0025]).
(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 Rao, Abstract, [0004]- [0012].
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claims 9, 20 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merlin as applied to claims 1, 11 and 22 above, and further in view of XU (CN 107370550 B).
Claim 9. Merlin teaches the wireless device of claim 1,
Merlin does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: wherein the instructions further cause the communications processor to: apply a restricted access mechanism in which the wireless device accesses the TDMA wireless communication channel only during a restricted access window; and allow the wireless device to access a CSMA wireless communication network during times outside the restricted access window.
The missing elements are disclosed by XU: wherein the instructions further cause the communications processor to: apply a restricted access mechanism in which the wireless device accesses the TDMA wireless communication channel only during a restricted access window (Abstract: a rate adaptive method for real-time WiFi based on channel statistical information: the link scheduling adopts centralized, namely closing CSMA/CA, using the mode of TDMA, AP allocates fixed scheduling time for each station, the data transmission of each station is real-time predictable)(Examiner note: restricted access to TDMA occurs after closing CSMA/CA); and allow the wireless device to access a CSMA wireless communication network during times outside the restricted access window (Background: the default uses CSMA/CA, with less interference, good channel condition or slow channel condition change under the condition that it can have the best performance) (Examiner note: the default is CSMA, when less interference, good channel condition are present).
(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 XU, Abstract and Background.
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claims 20 and 29 are rejected substantially the same as the corresponding elements in Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claims:
Rao (US 20170230841 A1) [0023]-[0025] Long-Range Wi-Fi technology is an adaptation of 802.11 standards to provide long distance connectivity using directional antennas and some tweaks to the physical and MAC layers of 802.11n (or ac) stack. A significant difference is replacement of the CSMA-CA-based medium access with TDMA having scheduled time slots for clients to eliminate collisions. In addition, various parameters such as acknowledgement timeout, slot size, DIFS, etc., are tweaked in order to account for longer propagation delays in long-range Wi-Fi. Directional sector antenna of the base station, installed at an elevated location, ensures a fairly long line of sight to the nearest clients. The clients also employ directional sector antennas, mounted as high as possible, as a part of the client's ABE.
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