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 § 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 1-4 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 3, it is unclear which node performs the claimed steps/functions, the base station, first wireless network node, or second wireless network node. The metes and bounds is unclear.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected for their dependency of claims 1 and 3 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0221309) in view of Chu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051574).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 5, Ozturk discloses a wireless communication system that includes a multi-device-compatible base station (figure 1 base station 102; paragraphs 30-32) that accommodates one or more first wireless terminals capable of performing communication in conformity with both a first communication scheme in which a first frequency band is used and a second communication scheme in which a second frequency band higher than the first frequency band is used (paragraphs 30-32: 5 Ghz and 6 Ghz) and one or more second wireless terminals (see figure 1), the wireless communication system comprising:
number-of-times measurement circuitry (figure 3 Controller/processor 359) configured to measure the number of retries in which the first wireless terminal tries to perform communication in conformity with the first communication scheme (paragraphs 37, 56, 57: UE determines the first unlicensed frequency channel is unavailable after a number of failed attempts exceeding a first threshold number of failed attempts); and
control circuitry (figure 3 Controller/processor 359) configured to perform control such that the first wireless terminal performs wireless communication with the base station using the second communication scheme without using the first communication scheme (paragraphs 37, 55, 103: communicates with secondary cell of base station through unlicensed frequency spectrum) until a predetermined time passes (figure 6 step 612 and 614; paragraphs 103-104: predetermined time passes is second threshold duration) when the number of retries measured by the number-of-times measurement circuitry exceeds a preset number of retries (paragraphs 37, 56, 57, 61: UE determines the first unlicensed frequency channel is unavailable after a number of failed attempts exceeding a first threshold number of failed attempts).
Ozturk does not explicitly teach less than a predetermined number of retries in which the second wireless terminal tries to perform communication in conformity with the first communication scheme.
However, Ozturk’s figure 6 steps 612 and 612 and paragraph 61, 103, and 104 teaches the first failure threshold to trigger report is less than a second threshold to trigger radio link failure (RLF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Ozturk less than a predetermined number of retries in which the second wireless terminal tries to perform communication in conformity with the first communication scheme.
The motivation would have been to for base station’s configuration (paragraph 56).
Ozturk does not teach a second wireless device incapable of performing communication in conformity with the second communication scheme but capable of performing communication in conformity with the first communication scheme.
However, in the same field of multi-link/band/channel, Chu discloses a second wireless device incapable of performing communication in conformity with the second communication scheme but capable of performing communication in conformity with the first communication scheme (paragraphs 25-27: multi-link AP in communication with legacy STA (second wireless device) and multi-link STA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Ozturk a second wireless device incapable of performing communication in conformity with the second communication scheme but capable of performing communication in conformity with the first communication scheme.
The motivation would have been a backward compatible 802.11 standard network (paragraph 25).
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 6, all limitations of claims 1, 3, and 5 are disclosed above. Ozturk further teaches the first and second communication schemes are wireless communication schemes conforming to a wireless LAN standard (paragraphs 30-32).
Claim 7 is rejected similarly as claim 1 above. Ozturk further teaches non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to function (paragraphs 24 and 25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0081266) discloses multi-link device with retry counter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights