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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2020/0245409 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses a wireless communication relay device comprising: a transceiver configured to form a first link with a wireless access point (AP) and a second link with a wireless non-AP station (STA) (e.g. figs. 1-2); and a processor operably connected to the transceiver and configured to: determine to perform a relay control action comprising (i) setup of a relay connection by which the relay device will relay traffic between the AP and the STA over the first and second links (figs. 1-2, 4-5; paragraph [0045]; [0055]-[0057]; [0071]-[0074]; [0084]-[0085]; [0088]-[0090]; [0094]-[0099]; [0103]-[0107]; [0111]-[0118], set up is determined), (ii) teardown of the relay connection (paragraph [0087]; [0098]; [0105]; [0113], relay connection teardown), or (iii) advertisement of a capability of the relay device to support the relay connection (paragraph [0033]-[0036]; [0043]-[0044]; [0052]; [0058]; [0061]; [0073]-[0074]; [0091]-[0096]; [0102]-[0104]; [0110]-[0112]; [0115], capability information of relay support connection), and generate a control message including an indication of the relay control action, wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit, to at least one of the AP and the STA, the generated control message (paragraph [0071]-[0074]; [0088]; [0103]; [0104]; and etc., illustrates relay devices sends a result to request of set up, capability information, and teardown connection).
Regarding claim 8, the claim includes features identical to subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1. The claim is a mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding method, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 2 and 9, Kwon discloses wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive a relay setup request message from the AP or the STA, the processor is further configured to determine whether to set up the relay connection based on the relay setup request, based on the determination, the indication of the relay control action in the generated control message is an indication that the relay setup request is either accepted or denied, and the transceiver is configured to transmit the generated control message to the AP or the STA from which the relay setup request message was received (paragraph [0071]-[0074]; [0088]; [0103]; [0104]; [0049]; [0091]; and so on).
Regarding claim 3 and 10, Kwon discloses wherein: the relay setup request message includes parameters for the relay connection, and the processor is configured to determine whether to set up the relay connection based on whether the relay device can support the parameters (paragraph [0013]; [0041]-[0045]; [0077]-[0079]; [0091]-[0093]; and so on).
Regarding claim 4 and 11, Kwon discloses wherein: the transceiver is further configured to, after the relay connection is set up between the AP and the STA, receive a relay teardown message from the AP or the STA, and the processor is further configured to stop relaying the traffic between the AP and the STA based on the relay teardown message (paragraph [0087]; [0097]-[0098]; [0103]-[0105]; [0113]; and etc.).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon discloses wherein: the processor is further configured to generate a relay capability advertisement message based on a capability of the AP to support the relay connection, and the transceiver is further configured to transmit the relay capability advertisement message to at least one of the relay device or the STA (paragraph [0010]; [0013]; [0033]-[0034]; [0052]; [0058]; [0073]-[0074]; [0091]-[0096]; and so on).
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.
Claims 5, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Hsu et al. (US 2012/0135677 A1).
Regarding claim 5 and 12, as applied above, Kwon discloses wherein: the processor is further configured to, after the relay connection is set up between the AP and the STA, receive a relay teardown message from the AP or the STA. However, Kwon does not explicitly disclose determine that the relay device will stop relaying the traffic between the AP and the STA, and the indication of the relay control action in the generated control message is an indication that the relay device will stop relaying the traffic between the AP and the STA.
Hsu teaches determine that the relay device will stop relaying the traffic between the AP and the STA, and the indication of the relay control action in the generated control message is an indication that the relay device will stop relaying the traffic between the AP and the STA (paragraph [0063]-[0066]; 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 determine that the relay device will stop relaying the traffic between the AP and the STA, and the indication of the relay control action in the generated control message is an indication that the relay device will stop relaying the traffic between the AP and the STA as taught by Hus into Kwon in order to reduce losing of user data packets.
Regarding claim 19, as applied above, Kwon discloses wherein: the transceiver is further configured to, after the relay connection is set up, receive a relay teardown message from the relay device. However, Kwon does not explicitly disclose the processor is further configured to stop relaying the traffic to the STA using the relay connection based on the relay teardown message.
Hsu teaches the processor is further configured to stop relaying the traffic to the STA using the relay connection based on the relay teardown message (paragraph [0063]-[0066]; 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 the processor is further configured to stop relaying the traffic to the STA using the relay connection based on the relay teardown message as taught by Hus into Kwon in order to reduce losing of user data packets.
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