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 Arguments
The claim objection and most 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7-17-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submit: “Sakai does not describe or reasonably suggest a first wireless terminal "configured to communicate via a first communication scheme using a first frequency band, and communicate via a second communication scheme using a second frequency band higher than the first frequency band" together with a second wireless terminal "that is compatible with communication through the first communication scheme and is not compatible with communication through the second communication scheme," as recited in amended Claim 1. The HE terminal 200 and the legacy terminal 300 of Sakai are distinguished by DSC capability, and Sakai does not describe either terminal as being configured to communicate through both a lower first frequency band and a higher second frequency band, or as being restricted to the first frequency band. Accordingly, Sakai does not describe or reasonably suggest the recited first and second wireless terminals differentiated by frequency-band capability.”; the examiner respectfully disagree. First, inherently all wireless terminals require a communication scheme and a frequency band to communicate; in the instant case Sakai discloses that smartphone [900] may support one or more of the IEEE schemes and IEEE schemes support 2.4 and/or 5 GHZ. Therefore, when the smartphone supports one standard or scheme such as 802.11b it can be equated to the second wireless terminal; when support more than one such as 802.11b,802.11ac WI-FI direct, etc.; then reads on the first wireless terminal; clearly, being configured to communicate through both a lower first frequency band and a higher second frequency band, or as being restricted to the first frequency band. Accordingly, Sakai does describe the recited first and second wireless terminals differentiated by frequency-band capability. Moreover, the argued limitations are a description of the compatibility of the mobile terminal which does not necessarily modify the system. Is the system modified in any meaningful way due to the compatibility of the terminals? At this point the answer is no. The second communication scheme and frequency band are never used by the system. Thereby, the limitations fail to differentiate from the prior art.
Regarding the argument: “Thus, Sakai does not describe or reasonably suggest a first wireless terminal configured to communicate via a first communication scheme using a first frequency band, and communicate via a second communication scheme using a second frequency band higher than the first frequency band; a control device configured to control a first carrier sense level to be lower than a second carrier sense level, wherein the first carrier sense level is of communication between the base station and the first wireless terminal through the first communication scheme, and the second carrier sense level is of communication between the base station and the second wireless terminal through the first communication scheme, as recited in Claim 1.”; the examiner’s position that the previous paragraph already responded to the argument of the communication scheme and frequency band. As to the carrier sense, Sakai discloses controlling and lowering the carrier sense in communication with a base station.
The rest of the arguments fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
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 3, 6 and 9 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. Since it is not know the value of “a further value” it is unclear what the limitation require. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai 10143010.
As to claim 1, Sakai discloses a wireless communication system (see fig. 1-2) comprising: a first wireless terminal [one of 20A or 20B or 200 or 300] configured to communicate via a first communication scheme using a first frequency band and communicate via a second communication scheme using a second frequency band higher than the first frequency band [The wireless communication interface 913 supports one or more wireless LAN standards of IEEE 802.11a, 11b, 11g, 11n, 11ac, and 11ad to execute wireless LAN communication.; IEE802.11a or b are 2.4 GHZ while IEEE802.11AC is 5 GHZ] (see col. 54; lines 62-65); a second wireless terminal [one of 20A or 20B or 200 or 300] that is compatible with communication through the first communication scheme and is not compatible with communication through the second communication scheme [The wireless communication interface 913 supports one or more wireless LAN standards of IEEE 802.11a, 11b, 11g, 11n, 11ac, and 11ad to execute wireless LAN communication.; IEE802.11a or b are 2.4 GHZ] (see col. 54; lines 62-65); a base station [10A, 100] that is compatible with multiple links and accommodates the first wireless terminal and the second wireless terminal (see fig. 1-2), a control device configured to control a first carrier sense level to be lower than a second carrier sense level, wherein the first carrier sense level is of communication between the base station and the first wireless terminal through the first communication scheme, and the second carrier sense level is of communication between the base station and the second wireless terminal through the first communication scheme (see col. 52, lines 2-30; col. 59, lines 45-52; col. 61, lines 14-19). Sakai does not disclose the words multi-link; however, as disclosed in par. 0002 of the specification of the present application multi-link is a device equipped with a plurality of different wireless LAN interfaces and adopts a function of establishing a plurality of transmission paths. Moreover, it is noted that the claim does not require the use of the multi-link just to be compatible. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that since the claim does not require the use of the standard just to be compatible, it will bring the same predictable result of adjusting the carrier sense to avoid interference improving the communication regardless the compatibility.
As to claim 2, Sakai discloses the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein the first communication scheme and the second communication scheme are wireless communication schemes conforming to a wireless LAN standard [The wireless communication interface 913 supports one or more wireless LAN standards of IEEE 802.11a, 11b, 11g, 11n, 11ac, and 11ad to execute wireless LAN communication.] (see col. 54; lines 62-65).
Regarding claims 4-5, they are the corresponding method claims of system claims 1-2. Therefore, claims 4-5 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Regarding claims 7-8, they are the corresponding base station claims of system claims 1-2. Therefore, claims 7-8 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
As to claim 10, Sakai discloses the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein the control device includes a dynamic sensitivity controller configured to control the first carrier sense level (see col. 6, lines 4-8).
As to claims 11 and 14, Sakai discloses the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein the first frequency band is a 5 GHz band [IEEE 802.11ac] and the second frequency band is another GHz band [The wireless communication interface 913 supports one or more wireless LAN standards of IEEE 802.11a, 11b, 11g, 11n, 11ac, and 11ad to execute wireless LAN communication.] (see col. 54; lines 62-65). Sakai fails to disclose the second frequency band is a 6 GHz band; however, the second scheme is never used by the system; thereby, makes no difference in the system. Even if it used, is within the knowledge of one of the ordinary skills in the art to select any IEEE desired protocol including 11ax or 11be which use 6 GHz band. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use any desired commonly available protocol since it will bring the same predictable result of communicating the desired information while maintaining compatibility.
As to claim 12, Sakai discloses the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein the first wireless terminal includes a first device compatible with the first communication scheme and a second device compatible with the second communication scheme [The wireless communication interface 913 supports one or more wireless LAN standards of IEEE 802.11a, 11b, 11g, 11n, 11ac, and 11ad to execute wireless LAN communication.] (see col. 54; lines 62-65).
As to claim 15, Sakai discloses the base station according to claim 7, wherein the base station includes a first device [963] serving as an access point of the first communication scheme and a second device [963] serving as an access point of the second communication scheme [a plurality of circuits included in the wireless communication interface 963] (see col. 57, lines 47-50).
As to claim 16, Sakai discloses the base station according to claim 7, wherein the base station is configured integrally with the control device (see fig. 3, 30).
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai 10143010 in view of Yoshimura 20180249502.
As to claims 3, 6 and 9, Sakai discloses the wireless communication system/method according to claim 1/4, setting the carrier sense level during transmission in the communication to a value less than the predetermined value in a case in which a BSS identifier of a received frame in communication between the base station (see col. 52, lines 2-4; col. 59, lines 45-52; col. 61, lines 14-19). Sakai fails to disclose a BSS identifier. In an analogous art, Yoshimura discloses wherein the first carrier sense level during transmission in is set to a value less than a further value of the second carrier sense level in a case in which a basic service set BSS identifier of a received frame in communication between the base station and the first wireless terminal through the first communication scheme matches a host BSS [the information relating to the transmission source of the frame is information for identifying a BSS to which the transmission source of the frame belongs] (see par. 0026, 0028, 0050), and the further values is less than a values to which the first carrier sense level is set in a case in which the BSS identifier of the received frame is different from the host BSS [in a case where the information for identifying the BSS to which the transmission source of the frame belongs is not consistent with the BSS to which the base station apparatus itself belongs] (see par. 0027-0028, 0032-0033, 0046, 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of following the instructions of the serving base station.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai 10143010 in view of Caroiu 20210185607.
As to claim 13, Sakai discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 4, further comprising determining a condition for communication between the base station and the first wireless terminal through the first communication, wherein the first carrier sense level is controlled to be lower than the second carrier sense level upon determining that the condition for the communication is satisfied (see col. 52, lines 2-30; col. 59, lines 45-52; col. 61, lines 14-19). Sakai fails to disclose the specific condition. In an analogous art, Cariou discloses determining whether communication between the base station and the first wireless terminal through the first communication scheme is multi-link device communication [multi-link parameters and capability indication] (see par. 0036-0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add Caroiu’s condition to Sakai for the simple purpose of allowing proper and efficient operation of the desired protocol.
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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights