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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites “A computer-readable storage medium …” After close inspection, the examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not specifically identify what may be included as a computer-readable storage medium and what is not to be included as a computer-readable storage medium. An examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, given the silence of the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer-readable storage medium of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to such a computer-readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pub. 2023/0125956) in view of Ma et al. (US Pub. 2022/0225108).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 11, Wang teaches a method for implementing dynamic frequency selection, applied to a wireless networking system, wherein the wireless networking system comprises a master network device, and the method comprises: controlling the master network device to work at a first bandwidth (“the second frequency bandwidth is 80 MHz” in [0118]); monitoring whether a target channel is occupied by a first non-target signal (“performs CAC check” in [0100]); and controlling, under a condition that the target channel is not occupied by the first non-target signal, the master network device to work at a second bandwidth including the target channel (“If the routing device receives no radar signal (that is, the received communication data does not include the radar signal) within the CAC check duration, the routing device may determine that the 5 GHz channel of the first frequency bandwidth is available. Therefore, the routing device may perform communication based on the 5 GHz channel of the first frequency bandwidth” in [0103]). Wang, however, does not teach monitoring in real time. Ma teaches monitoring in real time (“perform CAC in real time” in [0006]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to have monitoring in real time as taught by Ma in order to switch to another channel to ensure that the radar preferentially uses the DFS channel [0006].
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 18, Wang teaches the wireless networking system further comprises a slave network device, and after the controlling the master network device to work at a second bandwidth including the target channel, the method further comprises: generating first prompt information, wherein the first prompt information is configured to give a prompt that the master network device has already worked at the second bandwidth (“broadcast the beacon frame (beacon frame)” in [0104]); and controlling, based on the first prompt information, the slave network device to work at the second bandwidth including the target channel (“first terminal performs communication based on the 5 GHz channel of the first frequency bandwidth when the first terminal is configured to operate on the 5 GHz channel of the first frequency bandwidth and receives the beacon frame” in [0105]).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 19, Wang teaches in a process during which the master network device works at the second bandwidth, the method further comprises: monitoring whether the target channel is occupied by a second non-target signal (“the routing device detects the radar signal on the DFS channel in a CAC check process” in [0122]); and controlling a working bandwidth of the master network device to change to the first bandwidth, or, controlling the master network device to work in a non-target channel under a condition that the target channel is occupied by the second non-target signal ( “The routing device may also stop, when detecting that the DFS channel includes the radar signal, communication that is performed based on the 5 GHz channel of the first frequency bandwidth, including stopping broadcasting the beacon frame on the 5 GHz channel, to prevent the radar signal from being interfered with. This case is similar to the case of the first terminal. In addition, CAC check may be performed again, to perform communication again on the 5 GHz channel after the radar signal on the DFS channel disappears” in [0120]) and Ma teaches monitoring in real time (“perform CAC in real time” in [0006]).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 20, Wang teaches the wireless networking system further comprises a slave network device, and after the controlling a working bandwidth of the master network device to change to the first bandwidth under the condition that the target channel is occupied by the second non-target signal, the method further comprises: generating second prompt information, wherein the second prompt information is configured to give a prompt that the master network device has already worked at the first bandwidth (“the routing device broadcasts the specific management frame after detecting that the DFS channel includes the radar signal. Correspondingly, when receiving the specific management frame, the first terminal may determine that the DFS channel includes the radar signal” in [0123]); and controlling, based on the second prompt information, a working bandwidth of the slave network device to change to the first bandwidth (“when detecting that the DFS channel includes the radar signal, the first terminal switches to the 5 GHz channel of the second frequency bandwidth for communication” in [0115]).
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 22, Wang teaches the first non-target signal is a radar signal (“the radar signal” in [0115]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Wang teaches the radar signal comprises at least one of the following: a military radar signal and a weather radar signal (“a military radar system or a meteorological radar system” in [0083]).
Claims 5, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Ma et al. and further in view of Johnson et al. (US Pub. 2021/0099889).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 21, Wang in view of Ma teaches the limitations in claims 3, 13 and 19 as shown above. Wang in view of Ma, however, does not teach storing the target channel in an occupied channel registration list under a condition that the target channel is occupied by the second non-target signal; and searching the occupied channel registration list after a predetermined period of time, and re-determining whether the target channel is occupied. Johnson teaches storing the target channel in an occupied channel registration list under a condition that the target channel is occupied by the second non-target signal (“the non-DFS list 132 and DFS list 134 may include all accessible channels ranked according to their respective channel scores. … Further, the list(s) and/or channel scores may factor in whether a radar signal is present on each channel” in [0026]); and searching the occupied channel registration list after a predetermined period of time, and re-determining whether the target channel is occupied (see “network and spectral scans may be performed for all available DFS and non-DFS channels” in [0040] after “setting the primary radio to an initial DFS channel” in [0039]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Ma to have storing the target channel in an occupied channel registration list under a condition that the target channel is occupied by the second non-target signal; and searching the occupied channel registration list after a predetermined period of time, and re-determining whether the target channel is occupied as taught by Johnson in order to determine preferred channel [0025].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights