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 § 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn US 20130242783 in view of Kim US 20130109403
1. An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Horn: fig. 2), configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a network node, configuration information for access point communications (Horn: fig. 6, unit 604 fig. 10, unit 1002 - the UE may receive, from a serving base station, a request to measure one or more WLAN APs), wherein the configuration information indicates at least one of a triggering condition or a reporting condition, and wherein the triggering condition is a condition for transmitting a control frame (Horn: [0076-0079] – event driven measurement config with threshold “event” (event C1/C2/C3); UE acts/reports when metric crosses threshold);
receive an access point beacon (Horn: [0065] – UE performs Passive scanning, receiver/ measures the WLAN beacon (RCPI/RSSI from beacon)); and
Horn merely discloses a robust action frame
Kim teaches transmit a robust action frame (Kim: Table 4 [0090-0091, 0103, 0108, 0118-0119], STA transmits a WSM/DSE request frame to the AP carrying channel information (the structural act: client [Wingdings font/0xE0]AP frame restricting AP channel use)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Horn’s invention in order to protect the primary user signal from the STA/AP operated at TVWS [0108], as taught by Kim.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the robust action frame indicates a restriction to one or more channels (Kim: Table 4 [0090-0091, 0103, 0108, 0118-0119]) STA transmits updated WSM to AP identifying a channel as unavailable).
Claim(s) 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn US 20130242783 in view of Kim US 20130109403 further in view of Rashid US 20160183220
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more channels correspond to one or more channels being used by the network node (Rashid: [0043] fig. 6, abstract – the restricted unlicensed channel is the one overlapping the licensed channel the eNB/US is using, which is why it is restricted).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Horn’s invention in order to vacate the unlicensed channel during the overlapping the licensed channel, as taught by Rashid.
4. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the restriction to the one or more channels indicates that at least a portion of the one or more channels are not to be used by an access point for a time period (Kim: [0108, 0118-0119]) the STA/AP must stop using the corresponding channel and must be shifted to another channel within a short time).
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration information indicates the triggering condition (Horn: fig. 6, unit 604 – the measurement configuration is event-driven and defines the trigger events (Event C1/C2/C3)).
6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to detect, in accordance with receiving the access point beacon, that the condition for transmitting the robust action frame to an access point has been satisfied (Horn: fig. 6, unit 606 – UE evaluated the WLAN beacon measurement against the configured event and acts when the event condition is met (Event C1)).
7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the condition for transmitting the robust action frame to the access point is an absolute access point beacon strength condition (Horn: fig. 6 – Event C1 compares the beacon measurement to an absolute threshold (“Ms-Hys>Threh”), i.e., an absolute beacon-strength condition).
8. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the condition for transmitting the robust action frame to the access point is an access point beacon strength relative to a network node signal strength condition (Horn: fig. 6 – Event C1 compares the beacon measurement to an absolute threshold (“Ms-Hys>Threh”), i.e., an absolute beacon-strength condition; Rashid: Abstract – protection is keyed to cellular-vs-WiFi strength relationship (stronger signals protected, weaker not).
9. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration information indicates the reporting condition, wherein the reporting condition is a condition for reporting an access point beacon measurement to the network node (Horn: fig. 6, unit 606-608 – Event driven measurement reporting configuration; UE reports the WLAN AP beacon measurement over RRC when the metric exceed the configured threshold).
10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to detect, in accordance with receiving the access point beacon, that the condition for reporting the access point beacon measurement to the network node has been satisfied (Horn: fig. 6, unit 606 – an event triggers the UE to provide a measurement report once the beacon measurement crosses the reporting threshold).
11. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: report the access point beacon measurement to the network node; and receive, from the network node, an indication to transmit the robust action frame to an access point (Horn: [0096] fig. 6-7, unit 606-608; fig. 10, unit 1035 – the UE report the WLAN AP beacon measurement to the service BS over RRC and in response receives an RRC command/indication from the BS directing the US to act on that AP).
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the robust action frame, are configured to cause the UE to transmit the robust action frame to the access point in accordance with receiving, from the network node, the indication to transmit the robust action frame to the access point (Horn: [0096] fig. 7, unit 702-704 – UE action toward the WLAN AP is performed in accordance with (responsive to) the RRC command received from the BS, i.e., network command rather than autonomous; fig. 10, unit 1035 – upon receiving the RRC command the UE acts on the AP).
13. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to receive, from the network node, at least one of security information or authentication information that enables the UE to transmit the robust action frame to an access point (Horn: [0096] fig. 6 – the cellular network provide WLAN interworking security/authentication context that enable the UEs’ interaction with the operator WLAN AP .. reporting table – NAIHR, roaming consortium, network authentication).
Regarding claims 14-20, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-13, where the difference used is a “apparatus” with a processor and a memory (Horn: Referring to FIG. 2, includes a processor, a memory) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Remark:
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is (571) 270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski, can be reached on (571) 270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights