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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 9, 2024 and December 5, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 14, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Magar et al, International Patent Application Publication No. WO 01/11833 A1 (hereinafter Magar, included in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding Claim 1, Magar discloses a method for wireless communication performed by an apparatus of a first wireless local area network, WLAN, device (e.g., page 9, line 12, and page 14, lines 8-9, and Fig. 3: base station [i.e., first WLAN device] controls N3 channels [radio frequencies, wireless comm]), comprising: receiving one or more management frames including a first management frame from a second WLAN device (e.g., page 15, lines 19-22 [request for N3 channel creation from other wireless devices, where the channel creation corresponds to a first management frame, and the other wireless devices correspond to a second WLAN device]), the first management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports a non-orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing, non-OFDM, data rate (e.g., page 11, lines 1-8 [direct sequence spread spectrum, DSSS, high bit rate corresponds to a non-OFDM modulation data rate]; e.g., page 12, lines 1-2 [N3 channel is the secondary, high bit-rate wireless channel. The request for communication on the N3 channel is interpreted by Examiner as support of the DSSS data rate]) for communications via one or more frequency bands, the one or more frequency bands including one or more non-2.4GHz bands (e.g., page 11, line 3: "the GHz bands"; e.g., page 10, lines 13-14 [defining a low-power U-NII band as a GHz band]; e.g., page 2, lines 11-15: [the low power] U-NII band, operating in a 5 GHz band, is a non-2.4GHz band) and transmitting a second management frame to the second WLAN device, the second management frame indicating the first WLAN device supports the non-OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands (e.g., page 14, lines 4-6, page 15, lines 22-25 [granting and programming the N3 channel implies a sending of the second management frame in the case where the base station is a peer in N3 communication with the second WLAN device. The latter case is disclosed in page 13, lines 10-11, and Fig. 3, where device 74 is the second WLAN device).
Regarding Claim 2, Magar discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Magar discloses wherein the non-OFDM data rate is a data rate of a plurality of data rates associated with an IEEE 802.11b standard, and the one or more non-2.4 GHz bands includes one or more of a 3.5 GHz band, a 5 GHz band, a 6 GHz band, a 45 GHz band, and a 60 GHz band (e.g., page 2, lines 11-15: [the low power] U-NII band, operating in a 5 GHz band, is a non-2.4GHz band).
Regarding Claim 3, Magar discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Magar discloses wherein the non-OFDM data rate is a data rate of a plurality of non-conformant data rates, and the one or more non-2.4 GHz bands includes one or more of a 3.5 GHz band, a 5 GHz band, a 6 GHz band, a 45 GHz band, and a 60 GHz band (e.g., page 2, lines 11-15: [the low power] U-NII band, operating in a 5 GHz band, is a non-2.4GHz band).
Regarding Claim 14, Magar discloses an apparatus of a first wireless local area network (WLAN) device (e.g., FIG. 7-9), comprising: one or more processors; and one or more interfaces (e.g., FIG. 9 shows a high-level block diagram for one embodiment of a wireless switch 192 according to the invention Switch 192 comprises air interface circuit and MAC resources to support a plurality of wireless links) configured to perform operations that are functionally similar to the method of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 14.
Regarding Claim 20, Magar discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 14.
Magar discloses wherein the first management frame is one of a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, a probe request frame, an association request frame, a reassociation request frame, and a vendor-defined frame, and the second management frame is one of a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, a probe request frame, an association request frame, a reassociation request frame, and a vendor-defined frame (in IEEE 802.11 standard communication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that management frames and beacons are used (e.g., see example of Kazys et al, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1873969 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0017] According to current IEEE 802.11 standards, an AP advertises its supported data rates in a Supported Rates Information Element (IE) and possibly also in an optional Extended Supported Rates IE, both of which are included in management frames. A non-exhaustive list of examples for management frames that include a Supported Rates IE includes probe requests, probe responses, authentication requests, authentication responses, association requests, association responses and beacon frames), where the beacons transmitted periodically (e.g., see example of Abraham et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170325230 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0060] Transmission of a beacon may be divided into a number of groups or intervals)..
Regarding Claim 21, Magar discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 14.
Magar discloses wherein the first WLAN device and the second WLAN device are WLAN devices configured to implement one or more of an infrastructure mode, an ad hoc mode, a peer-to-peer (P2P) mode, and a Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN) mode in a wireless communication network (Magar discloses IEE 802.11 based access points, which Examiner asserts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate in infrastructure mode, as may be seen in example of Gu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050180444 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0039] In the infrastructure mode of WLANs based on the IEEE 802.11b/a/g/e standard)).
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.
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.
Claims 4-6, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magar in view of Sakusabe, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1176709 A2 (hereinafter Sakusabe, included in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding Claim 4, Magar discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Magar does not expressly disclose receiving a third management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports an OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands; and selecting either the non-OFDM data rate associated with the first management frame or the OFDM data rate associated with the third management frame for communications via the one or more frequency bands.
Sakusabe discloses receiving a third management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports an OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands; and selecting either the non-OFDM data rate associated with the first management frame or the OFDM data rate associated with the third management frame for communications via the one or more frequency bands ([as a first matter of interpretation, as Sakusabe also discloses IEEE 802.11 standard communication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that management frames and beacons are used in system of Sakusabe (e.g., consider the example of Kazys et al, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1873969 A1 (e.g., FIG. 2, management frame in IEEE 802.11])]; Sakusabe: e.g., ¶ [0064] Referring now to FIG. 22, there is illustrated a flow chart depicting the operation of, for example, CPU 21 or CPU 51 in response to operation section 17 or operation section 47 to select the frequency band and/or modulation format to effect optimal communication with minimal interference and disturbance [the subsequent disclosure is of communication between terminals, but Examiner asserts that selection to effect optimal communication with minimal interference is relevant for communication between any two devices, including one or more base stations, as in Magar]; e.g., ¶ [0065] In the routine depicted in FIG. 22, instruction S1 first changes over the front end section in the radio communication section… to the 2.4 GHz band… For example, the data that now is transmitted on a frequency channel in the 2.4 GHz band, modulated in the CCK format is demodulated and the error rate of the demodulated data is sensed. If this error rate is acceptable, inquiry S4 is answered in the affirmative and the routine advances to instruction S5, whereat communication is carried out in the 2,4 GHz band using CCK modulation; e.g., ¶ [0066] However, if inquiry S2 had been answered in the negative, the routine advances to change the frequency band to 5 GHz and then instruction S7 is carried out to change over the modulation format to OFDM. Then, inquiry S8 is made to determine if data that is modulated in the OFDM format can be satisfactorily demodulated. If this inquiry is answered in the affirmative, the routine advances to instruction S5 and communication is maintained in the 5 GHz band and in accordance with the OFDM format. But, if inquiry S8 is answered in the negative, the routine advances to instruction S9 which changes over the modulation format from OFDM to CCK. Communication now is maintained in the 5 GHz band and in accordance with the CCK format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication using non-OFDM data rate between WAN devices, as disclosed by Magar, with the disclosure of selecting OFDM or a non-OFDM rate, as disclosed by Sakusabe. The motivation to combine would have been to select the frequency band and/or modulation format to effect optimal communication with minimal interference and disturbance (Sakusabe: e.g., ¶ [0064]).
Regarding Claim 5, Magar in view of Sakusabe discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 4.
Sakusabe discloses selecting the non-OFDM data rate associated with the first management frame, the selection associated with a link quality of a communication link between the first WLAN device and the second WLAN device and data rates supported by the first WLAN device (e.g., ¶ [0066] communication is maintained in the 5 GHz band [i.e., non-OFDM rate]).
Regarding Claim 6, Magar in view of Sakusabe discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 4.
Sakusabe discloses wherein the first management frame is a first beacon frame and the third management frame is a second beacon frame, the first beacon frame and the second beacon frame being received by the first WLAN device periodically within a beacon time interval (Sakusabe does not expressly disclose beacons and management frames., But, as noted above, in IEEE 802.11 standard communication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that management frames and beacons are used (e.g., see example of Kazys et al, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1873969 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0017] According to current IEEE 802.11 standards, an AP advertises its supported data rates in a Supported Rates Information Element (IE) and possibly also in an optional Extended Supported Rates IE, both of which are included in management frames. A non-exhaustive list of examples for management frames that include a Supported Rates IE includes probe requests, probe responses, authentication requests, authentication responses, association requests, association responses and beacon frames), where the beacons transmitted periodically (e.g., see example of Abraham et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170325230 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0060] Transmission of a beacon may be divided into a number of groups or intervals)]).
Regarding Claim 15, Magar discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 14.
The functional limitations of Claim 15 are similar to claim 4. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 4 shall be applied to claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Magar in view of Sakusabe discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 15.
The functional limitations of Claim 16 are similar to claim 5. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 5 shall be applied to claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Magar in view of Sakusabe discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 15.
The functional limitations of Claim 17 are similar to claim 6. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 6 shall be applied to claim 17.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magar in view of Sakusabe in further view of Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 9300371 (hereinafter Zhang, included in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding Claim 7, Magar discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Magar discloses receiving the first management frame via a first BSS associated with the non-OFDM data rate, the first management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports the non-OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands (e.g., page 15, lines 19-22 [request for N3 channel creation from other wireless devices, where the channel creation corresponds to a first management frame, and the other wireless devices correspond to a second WLAN device]; e.g., page 11, lines 1-8 [direct sequence spread spectrum, DSSS, high bit rate corresponds to a non-OFDM modulation data rate]; e.g., page 12, lines 1-2 [N3 channel is the secondary, high bit-rate wireless channel. The request for communication on the N3 channel is interpreted by Examiner as support of the DSSS data rate]).
Magar does not expressly disclose receiving a third management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports an OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands; and selecting either the non-OFDM data rate associated with the first management frame or the OFDM data rate associated with the third management frame for communications via the one or more frequency bands; and selecting either the first BSS associated with the non-OFDM data rate and the first management frame or the second BSS associated with the OFDM data rate and the third management frame.
Sakusabe discloses receiving a third management frame via a second BSS associated with an OFDM data rate, the third management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports an OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands; and selecting either the non-OFDM data rate associated with the first management frame or the OFDM data rate associated with the third management frame for communications via the one or more frequency bands (e.g., ¶ [0064] Referring now to FIG. 22, there is illustrated a flow chart depicting the operation of, for example, CPU 21 or CPU 51 in response to operation section 17 or operation section 47 to select the frequency band and/or modulation format to effect optimal communication with minimal interference and disturbance [the subsequent disclosure is of communication between terminals, but Examiner asserts that selection to effect optimal communication with minimal interference is relevant for communication between any two devices, including one or more base stations, as in Magar]; e.g., ¶ [0065] In the routine depicted in FIG. 22, instruction S1 first changes over the front end section in the radio communication section… to the 2.4 GHz band… For example, the data that now is transmitted on a frequency channel in the 2.4 GHz band, modulated in the CCK format is demodulated and the error rate of the demodulated data is sensed. If this error rate is acceptable, inquiry S4 is answered in the affirmative and the routine advances to instruction S5, whereat communication is carried out in the 2,4 GHz band using CCK modulation; e.g., ¶ [0066] However, if inquiry S2 had been answered in the negative, the routine advances to change the frequency band to 5 GHz and then instruction S7 is carried out to change over the modulation format to OFDM. Then, inquiry S8 is made to determine if data that is modulated in the OFDM format can be satisfactorily demodulated. If this inquiry is answered in the affirmative, the routine advances to instruction S5 and communication is maintained in the 5 GHz band and in accordance with the OFDM format. But, if inquiry S8 is answered in the negative, the routine advances to instruction S9 which changes over the modulation format from OFDM to CCK. Communication now is maintained in the 5 GHz band and in accordance with the CCK format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication using non-OFDM data rate between WAN devices, as disclosed by Magar, with the disclosure of selecting OFDM or a non-OFDM rate, as disclosed by Sakusabe. The motivation to combine would have been to select the frequency band and/or modulation format to effect optimal communication with minimal interference and disturbance (Sakusabe: e.g., ¶ [0064]).
Magar in view of Sakusabe does not expressly disclose selecting either the first BSS associated with the non-OFDM data rate and the first management frame or the second BSS associated with the OFDM data rate and the third management frame.
Zhang discloses selecting either the first BSS associated with the non-OFDM data rate and the first management frame or the second BSS associated with the OFDM data rate and the third management frame (e.g., column 17, lines 17-31: The two network devices may use different modulation schemes for various reasons. For example, the two network devices may comply with different IEEE 802.11 specifications and consequently may use different modulation schemes. Alternatively, the two network devices may select different modulation schemes at different times based on changes in channel conditions. For example, the second network device may transmit the training signal modulated using a first modulation scheme, and subsequently, due to changes in channel condition, the first network device may transmit beamformed signals generated based on the training signal using a second modulation scheme. The two network devices may inform each other their respective capabilities regarding supported modulation schemes via information elements exchanged during association prior to beamforming [i.e., the selection is not just between data rates, but between devices]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication using non-OFDM data rate between WAN devices and selecting OFDM or a non-OFDM rate based on the link quality between devices, as disclosed by Magar in view of Sakusabe, with the disclosure of selecting between devices advertising a OFDM or a non-OFDM rate, as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation to combine would have been to support beamforming between different standard compliant devices (Zhang: e.g., Col 1, lines 21-24).
Regarding Claim 18, Magar discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 14.
The functional limitations of Claim 18 are similar to claim 7. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 7 shall be applied to claim 18.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magar in view of Sakusabe in further view of Zhang, in further view of Erceg et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180338310 A1 (hereinafter Erceg).
Regarding Claim 8, Magar in view of Sakusabe in further view of Zhang discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 7.
Magar in view of Sakusabe in further view of Zhang does not expressly disclose further comprising: selecting the first BSS associated with the non-OFDM data rate, the selection associated with a link quality of a communication link between the first WLAN device and the second WLAN device and data rates supported by the first WLAN device.
Erceg discloses further comprising: selecting the first BSS associated with the non-OFDM data rate, the selection associated with a link quality of a communication link between the first WLAN device and the second WLAN device and data rates supported by the first WLAN device (e.g., ¶ [0046] utilize the SNR to determine an appropriate frequency band for the second physical wireless channel. For example… if the first physical wireless channel is at a lower frequency, such as 2.4 GHz, and the SNR indicates that the link quality is above a first threshold, the unified MAC module 204 may select a 5 GHz channel [i.e., non-OFDM rate] for the second physical wireless channel. Furthermore, if the SNR indicates that the link quality is above a second threshold, which is greater than the first threshold, the unified MAC module 204 may select a 60 GHz channel for the second physical wireless channel. In one or more implementations, the SNR values may be linearly and/or non-linearly related to the link quality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication using non-OFDM data rate between WAN devices, as disclosed by Magar in view of Sakusabe in further view of Zhang, with the disclosure of selecting a non-OFDM rate based on the link quality between devices, as disclosed by Erceg. The motivation to combine would have been to support unified coordination of transmissions over multiple physical layer devices (Erceg: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 19, Magar in view of Sakusabe in further view of Zhang discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 18.
The functional limitations of Claim 19 are similar to claim 8. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 8 shall be applied to claim 19.
Claims 9, 10, 25, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magar in view of Erceg.
Regarding Claim 9, Magar discloses a method for wireless communication performed by an apparatus of a second wireless local area network (WLAN) device, comprising: transmitting one or more management frames including a first management frame to the first WLAN device (e.g., page 15, lines 19-22 [request for N3 channel creation from other wireless devices, where the channel creation corresponds to a first management frame, and the other wireless devices correspond to a second WLAN device]), the first management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports the non-OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands (e.g., page 2, lines 11-15: [the low power] U-NII band, operating in a 5 GHz band, is a non-2.4GHz band; e.g., page 10, lines 13-14 [defining a low-power U-NII band as a GHz band]; e.g., page 11, lines 1-8 [direct sequence spread spectrum, DSSS, high bit rate corresponds to a non-OFDM modulation data rate; and in line 3, note "the GHz bands"; e.g., page 12, lines 1-2 [N3 channel is the secondary, high bit-rate wireless channel. The request for communication on the N3 channel is interpreted as support of the DSSS data rate]); and receiving a second management frame from the first WLAN device, the second management frame indicating the first WLAN device supports the non-OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands (e.g., page 14, lines 4-6, page 15, lines 22-25 [granting and programming the N3 channel implies a sending of the second management frame in the case where the base station is a peer in N3 communication with the second WLAN device. The latter case is disclosed in page 13, lines 10-11, and Fig. 3, where device 74 is the second WLAN device).
Magar does not expressly disclose selecting a non-orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (non-OFDM) data rate for one or more frequency bands, the selection of the non-OFDM data rate associated with a link quality of a communication link between the second WLAN device and a first WLAN device.
Erceg discloses selecting a non-orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (non-OFDM) data rate for one or more frequency bands, the selection of the non-OFDM data rate associated with a link quality of a communication link between the second WLAN device and a first WLAN device (e.g., ¶ [0046] utilize the SNR to determine an appropriate frequency band for the second physical wireless channel. For example… if the first physical wireless channel is at a lower frequency, such as 2.4 GHz, and the SNR indicates that the link quality is above a first threshold, the unified MAC module 204 may select a 5 GHz channel [i.e., non-OFDM rate] for the second physical wireless channel. Furthermore, if the SNR indicates that the link quality is above a second threshold, which is greater than the first threshold, the unified MAC module 204 may select a 60 GHz channel for the second physical wireless channel. In one or more implementations, the SNR values may be linearly and/or non-linearly related to the link quality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication using non-OFDM data rate between WAN devices, as disclosed by Magar, with the disclosure of selecting a non-OFDM rate based on the link quality between devices, as disclosed by Erceg. The motivation to combine would have been to support unified coordination of transmissions over multiple physical layer devices (Erceg: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 10, Magar in view of Erceg discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 9.
Magar in view of Erceg discloses further comprising: transmitting a third management frame to the first WLAN device, the third management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports an OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands (as a matter of interpretation, since Magar and Erceg disclose IEEE 802.11 standard communication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that management frames and beacons are used in systems of Magar and Erceg (e.g., example of Kazys et al, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1873969 A1 (e.g., FIG. 2, management frame in IEEE 802.11]), which may then be combined with the disclosure of Erceg, as seen in examination of Claim 9, regarding the selection of non-OFDM data rate for one or more frequency bands (e.g., ¶ [0046]) to assert that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication using non-OFDM data rate between WAN devices, as disclosed by Magar, with the disclosure of selecting a non-OFDM rate based on the link quality between devices and transmitting management frame indicating support for an OFDM data rate, as disclosed by Erceg. The motivation to combine would have been to support unified coordination of transmissions over multiple physical layer devices (Erceg: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 25, Magar in view of Erceg discloses an apparatus of a second wireless local area network (WLAN) device (Magar: e.g., FIG. 7-9), comprising: one or more processors; and one or more interfaces (Magar: e.g., FIG. 9), which in combination, is configured to perform operations that are functionally similar to the method of claim 9. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 9 shall be applied to claim 25.
Regarding Claim 26, Magar in view of Erceg discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 25.
The functional limitations of Claim 26 are similar to claim 2. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 2 shall be applied to claim 26.
Regarding Claim 27, Magar in view of Erceg discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 25.
The functional limitations of Claim 27 are similar to claim 3. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 3 shall be applied to claim 27.
Claims 11, 12 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magar in view of Erceg.
Regarding Claim 11, Magar in view of Erceg discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 9.
Magar in view of Erceg discloses further comprising: transmitting the first management frame to the first WLAN device via a first BSS associated with the non-OFDM data rate, the first management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports the non-OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands (e.g., page 15, lines 19-22 [request for N3 channel creation from other wireless devices, where the channel creation corresponds to a first management frame, and the other wireless devices correspond to a second WLAN device]; e.g., page 11, lines 1-8 [direct sequence spread spectrum, DSSS, high bit rate corresponds to a non-OFDM modulation data rate]; e.g., page 12, lines 1-2 [N3 channel is the secondary, high bit-rate wireless channel. The request for communication on the N3 channel is interpreted by Examiner as support of the DSSS data rate]).
Magar in view of Erceg does not expressly disclose transmitting a third management frame to the first WLAN device via a second BSS associated with an OFDM data rate, the third management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports an OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands.
Sakusabe discloses transmitting a third management frame to the first WLAN device via a second BSS associated with an OFDM data rate, the third management frame indicating the second WLAN device supports an OFDM data rate for communications via the one or more frequency bands (e.g., ¶ [0064] Referring now to FIG. 22, there is illustrated a flow chart depicting the operation of, for example, CPU 21 or CPU 51 in response to operation section 17 or operation section 47 to select the frequency band and/or modulation format to effect optimal communication with minimal interference and disturbance [the subsequent disclosure is of communication between terminals, but Examiner asserts that selection to effect optimal communication with minimal interference is relevant for communication between any two devices, including one or more base stations, as in Magar]; e.g., ¶ [0065] In the routine depicted in FIG. 22, instruction S1 first changes over the front end section in the radio communication section… to the 2.4 GHz band… For example, the data that now is transmitted on a frequency channel in the 2.4 GHz band, modulated in the CCK format is demodulated and the error rate of the demodulated data is sensed. If this error rate is acceptable, inquiry S4 is answered in the affirmative and the routine advances to instruction S5, whereat communication is carried out in the 2,4 GHz band using CCK modulation; e.g., ¶ [0066] However, if inquiry S2 had been answered in the negative, the routine advances to change the frequency band to 5 GHz and then instruction S7 is carried out to change over the modulation format to OFDM. Then, inquiry S8 is made to determine if data that is modulated in the OFDM format can be satisfactorily demodulated. If this inquiry is answered in the affirmative, the routine advances to instruction S5 and communication is maintained in the 5 GHz band and in accordance with the OFDM format. But, if inquiry S8 is answered in the negative, the routine advances to instruction S9 which changes over the modulation format from OFDM to CCK. Communication now is maintained in the 5 GHz band and in accordance with the CCK format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication using non-OFDM data rate between WAN devices, as disclosed by Magar in view of Erceg, with the disclosure of selecting OFDM or a non-OFDM rate, as disclosed by Sakusabe. The motivation to combine would have been to select the frequency band and/or modulation format to effect optimal communication with minimal interference and disturbance (Sakusabe: e.g., ¶ [0064]).
Regarding Claim 12, Magar in view of Erceg in further view of Sakusabe discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 11.
Magar in view of Erceg does not expressly disclose further comprising: selecting a frequency band of the one or more frequency bands; and selecting either the non-OFDM data rate or the OFDM data rate for communications via the selected frequency band, the selection of either the non-OFDM data rate or the OFDM data rate associated with the link quality of the communication link between the second WLAN device and the first WLAN device.
Sakusabe discloses further comprising: selecting a frequency band of the one or more frequency bands; and selecting either the non-OFDM data rate or the OFDM data rate for communications via the selected frequency band, the selection of either the non-OFDM data rate or the OFDM data rate associated with the link quality of the communication link between the second WLAN device and the first WLAN device (e.g., ¶ [0064] Referring now to FIG. 22, there is illustrated a flow chart depicting the operation of, for example, CPU 21 or CPU 51 in response to operation section 17 or operation section 47 to select the frequency band and/or modulation format to effect optimal communication with minimal interference and disturbance [the subsequent disclosure is of communication between terminals, but Examiner asserts that selection to effect optimal communication with minimal interference is relevant for communication between any two devices, including one or more base stations, as in Magar]; e.g., ¶ [0065] In the routine depicted in FIG. 22, instruction S1 first changes over the front end section in the radio communication section… to the 2.4 GHz band… For example, the data that now is transmitted on a frequency channel in the 2.4 GHz band, modulated in the CCK format is demodulated and the error rate of the demodulated data is sensed. If this error rate is acceptable, inquiry S4 is answered in the affirmative and the routine advances to instruction S5, whereat communication is carried out in the 2,4 GHz band using CCK modulation; e.g., ¶ [0066] However, if inquiry S2 had been answered in the negative, the routine advances to change the frequency band to 5 GHz and then instruction S7 is carried out to change over the modulation format to OFDM. Then, inquiry S8 is made to determine if data that is modulated in the OFDM format can be satisfactorily demodulated. If this inquiry is answered in the affirmative, the routine advances to instruction S5 and communication is maintained in the 5 GHz band and in accordance with the OFDM format. But, if inquiry S8 is answered in the negative, the routine advances to instruction S9 which changes over the modulation format from OFDM to CCK. Communication now is maintained in the 5 GHz band and in accordance with the CCK format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication using non-OFDM data rate between WAN devices, as disclosed by Magar, with the disclosure of selecting OFDM or a non-OFDM rate, as disclosed by Sakusabe. The motivation to combine would have been to select the frequency band and/or modulation format to effect optimal communication with minimal interference and disturbance (Sakusabe: e.g., ¶ [0064]).
Regarding Claim 28, Magar in view of Erceg discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 25.
The functional limitations of Claim 28 are similar to claim 7. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 7 shall be applied to claim 28.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magar in view of Sakusabe in further view of Amini et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100316150 A1 (hereinafter Amini).
Regarding Claim 24, Magar discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 14.
Magar does not expressly disclose wherein: the one or more interfaces are configured to transmit an OFDM CTS2Self frame prior to a target beacon transmission time (TBTT), the OFDM CTS2Self frame to cause neighboring OFDM WLAN devices of the first WLAN device to stop performing communications; the one or more interfaces are configured to receive a beacon frame indicating the second WLAN device has one or more buffered data frames for the first WLAN device; and the one or more interfaces are configured to receive the one or more buffered data frames from the second WLAN device.
Sakusabe discloses the one or more interfaces are configured to receive a beacon frame indicating the second WLAN device has one or more buffered data frames for the first WLAN device; and the one or more interfaces are configured to receive the one or more buffered data frames from the second WLAN device (Sakusabe does not expressly disclose beacons and management frames., But, as noted above, in IEEE 802.11 standard communication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that management frames and beacons are used (e.g., see example of Kazys et al, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1873969 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0017] According to current IEEE 802.11 standards, an AP advertises its supported data rates in a Supported Rates Information Element (IE) and possibly also in an optional Extended Supported Rates IE, both of which are included in management frames. A non-exhaustive list of examples for management frames that include a Supported Rates IE includes probe requests, probe responses, authentication requests, authentication responses, association requests, association responses and beacon frames).
Magar in view of Sakusabe does not expressly disclose the one or more interfaces are configured to transmit an OFDM CTS2Self frame prior to a target beacon transmission time (TBTT), the OFDM CTS2Self frame to cause neighboring OFDM WLAN devices of the first WLAN device to stop performing communications.
Maini discloses the one or more interfaces are configured to transmit an OFDM CTS2Self frame prior to a target beacon transmission time (TBTT), the OFDM CTS2Self frame to cause neighboring OFDM WLAN devices of the first WLAN device to stop performing communications (e.g., ¶ [0143] Yet another manner by which those wireless communication devices not having such capability (e.g., the legacy, TGn and/or TGa wireless communication devices) may be taken off of the air and denied medium access during certain periods involves employing request to send (RTS) and clear to send (CTS) exchanges (including scheduled CTS transmissions), and/or clear to send to self (CTS2SELF) may be used. Alternatively, other channel reservations may be employed (e.g., performing medium reservation by performing handshakes between various wireless communication devices) without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. Moreover, any such combination of operation employing such a MU-SF, quiet period, RTS/CTS exchanges, scheduled CTS, CTS2SELF, etc. may be employed to take those wireless communication devices not having such capability (e.g., the legacy, TGn and/or TGa wireless communication devices) off of the air).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of communication between WAN devices, as disclosed by Magar in view of Sakusabe, with the disclosure of OFDM CTS2Self frame prior to a TBTT, the OFDM CTS2Self frame to cause neighboring OFDM WLAN devices of the first WLAN device to stop performing communications, as disclosed by Amini. The motivation to combine would have been to support mixed mode operations within multiple user, multiple access, and/or MIMO wireless communication systems (Amini: e.g., ¶ [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 22, 23, 29 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 13, dependent from claim 12, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation in response to selecting the non-OFDM data rate, selecting either a wideband non-OFDM data rate or a narrowband non-OFDM data rate, the selection of either the wideband non-OFDM data rate or the narrowband non-OFDM data rate associated with the link quality of the communication link between the second WLAN device and the first WLAN device.
Regarding Claim 22, dependent from claim 14, and Claim 29, dependent from claim 25, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation the one or more interfaces are configured to transmit a second control frame to the second WLAN device in response to receiving the first control frame, the second control frame to cause neighboring non-OFDM WLAN devices of the first WLAN device to stop performing communications; the one or more interfaces are configured to transmit a third control frame to cause neighboring OFDM WLAN devices of the first WLAN device to stop performing communications; and the one or more interfaces are configured to receive, from the second WLAN device, one or more data frames that use the non-OFDM data rate via a selected one of the one or more non-2.4 GHz bands.
Claim 23, dependent from claim 22, and Claim 30, dependent from claim 29, are also objected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights