DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No claims have been amended. Any examiner's note, objection, and rejection not repeated is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Applicant's arguments are summarized below:
Nowhere does Fuller disclose or suggest that replacement data is content from previous WLAN packet stored in memory.
Asai and Fuller, taken alone or in combination, would still fail to disclose or suggest “replacing at least a portion of the second content of the first WLAN packet as stored in the memory of the WLAN device.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Fuller fail to disclose or suggest that the replacement data content from previous WLAN packet stored in a memory is not cited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fuller, teaches redundancy purposes, the header information in the modified data packet may be transmitted to the second interface more than once, e.g., based on the number of lanes and/or the mode of communication used (see col. 8, lines 37-42) and depending on a transmission type, by replacing, removing, or adding fields and/or bits, to generate a modified data packet that comprises an error detection or error correction field redundancy purposes (e.g., a CRC or ECC field that may be based on some of the modified fields) that may comply with a second communication protocol, e.g., a C-PHY protocol and finally the modified data packet may be transmitted to a second interface (e.g., in a deserializer) that is designed to couple to a second device, e.g., a processor in a SoC" (View Fuller col. 8, lines 31-62). Further, the reference is not required to teach the exact claim language (i.e., replacing at least a portion of the second content of the second content of the first WLAN packet as stored in the memory of the WLAN device) to that of the present invention. The concepts are taught to the extent required by the actual claim language or the absence of “replacing at least a portion of the second content of the second content of the first WLAN packet as stored in the memory of the WLAN device " does not make the claim allowable, since the header information in the modified data packet may be transmitted to the second interface more than once, e.g., based on the number of lanes and/or the mode of communication used in the prior art is similar the claimed invention. Furthermore, the interpretation of the claim language must be as broad as possible for the given art. If the Applicant needs a specific interpretation of the claim language, these details must be imported into the claims. These details cannot be read into the claim language when the claim language is so broad as to encompass other valid interpretations. Applicants are advised to review Asai and Fuller references in its entirety for a complete and better understanding of the prior art applied. This may enhance the Applicants ability to formulate claim language that includes novelty of the application. It is the Examiner's conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not patentably distinct or novel over the prior arts of record. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly differentiates the claims from the prior art of record.
Examiner respectfully maintains the previous rejection. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asai et al. "herein Asai" (U.S. PN: 12,184,452) in view of Fuller et al. "herein Fuller" (U.S. PN: 11,595,504).
As per claim 1 and 11:
Asai substantially teaches or discloses a method performed by a wireless local area
network (WLAN) device (see figure 1 and col. 2, lines 56-64), the method comprising storing, in
a memory of a WLAN device, a first content of a first WLAN packet; receiving, by a WLAN
interface of the WLAN device, a second WLAN packet transmitted by a transmitting device,
wherein the second WLAN packet includes a second content (see col. 3, lines 3-9, col. 4, lines
11-4, col. 5, lines 55-67, and col. 21, lines 1-48); generating a third WLAN packet by replacing
at least a portion of the second content of the second WLAN packet with a corresponding at least
portion of the first content of the first WLAN packet as stored in the memory of the WLAN
device; and processing the third WLAN packet.
Asai substantially teaches the claimed invention described in claim 1 (as indicated
above). However, Asai does not explicitly teach generating a third WLAN packet by replacing at
least a portion of the second content of the second WLAN packet with a corresponding at least
portion of the first content of the first WLAN packet as stored in the memory of the WLAN
device
Fuller, in an analogous art, teaches generating a third WLAN packet by replacing at least a portion of the second content of the second WLAN packet with a corresponding at least portion of the first content of the first WLAN packet as stored in the memory of the WLAN device “the header information in the modified data packet may be transmitted to the second interface more than once, e.g., based on the number of lanes and/or the mode of communication used” (see col. 8, lines 37-42) and further “a protocol converter may modify, e.g., depending on a transmission type, by replacing, removing, or adding fields and/or bits, to generate a modified data packet that comprises an error detection or error correction field redundancy purposes (e.g., a CRC or ECC field that may be based on some of the modified fields) that may comply with a second communication protocol, e.g., a C-PHY protocol and finally the modified data packet may be transmitted to a second interface (e.g., in a deserializer) that is designed to couple to a second device, e.g., a processor in a SoC" (View Fuller col. 8, lines 31-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to modify Asai with the teachings of Fuller by replacing a
portion of the second content of the second packet with a corresponding portion of the first
content of the first packet for a generating a third packet.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that by replacing at least a portion of a second packet with a corresponding a portion
of the first packet for generating a packet would have provided reliable reception of transmitted
data.
As per claims 2 and 12:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including Fuller teach replacing at least the portion of the second content of the second
WLAN packet with the corresponding at least portion of the first content of the first WLAN
packet includes replacing content of one or more second fields of the second WLAN packet with
content of corresponding one or more first fields of the first WLAN packet, wherein the one or
more second fields are defined to be replaced at the WLAN device (View Fuller col. 8, lines 51-
62).
As per claims 3 and 13:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including identifying, by the WLAN device, whether the second WLAN packet is
corrupted, wherein generating the third WLAN packet is based on identifying that the second
WLAN packet is corrupted (View Asai col. 11, lines 60-67 to col. 12, lines 1-57).
As per claims 4 and 14:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including identifying whether the second WLAN packet is corrupted includes
performing a frame check sequence (FCS) on the second WLAN packet (View Asai figures 5
and 12, col. 8, lines 46-53 and col. 13, lines 6-24).
As per claims 5 and 15:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including performing FCS on the third WLAN packet, wherein processing the third
WLAN packet is based on the third WLAN packet passing the FCS performed on the third
WLAN packet (View Asai col. 8, lines 47-53).
As per claims 6 and 16:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including the WLAN device is a station (STA); and the transmitting device is an access
point (AP) communicably coupled to the STA (View Asai col. 3, lines 50-63).
As per claims 7 and 17:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including processing the third WLAN packet includes processing one or more of a traffic
indication map (TIM) field or a time synchronization function (TSF) field of the third WLAN
packet (View Asai col. 14, lines 46-61 and col. 15, lines 42-51).
As per claims 8 and 18:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including identifying, by the STA, that the third WLAN packet is corrupted;
transmitting, by the STA, a null data packet to the AP to receive a new WLAN packet from the
AP based on identifying that the third WLAN packet is corrupted, wherein transmitting the null
data packet by the STA is based on an Association ID (AID) being set in the TIM field of a
previously received beacon frame from the AP (View Asai col. 11, lines 60-67 to col. 12, lines 1-
57).
As per claims 9 and 19:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including wherein the second WLAN packet is a data packet unicast from the
transmitting device to the WLAN device (View Asai figure 2, col. 2, lines 56-64 and col. 5, lines
10-14).
As per claims 10 and 20:
The combination of Asai and Fuller substantially teach the claimed invention described in
claim 1 including wherein the first WLAN packet is generated from one of: a beacon frame
previously broadcast by the transmitting device; or a probe response frame previously
transmitted by the transmitting device in response to receiving a probe request frame from the
WLAN device (View Asai col. 8, lines 46-67 to col. 9, lines 1-21).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner'ssupervisor, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
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.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112