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
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et at. US 2022/0217797 in view of Williams et al US Pat. 7,151,774.
As per claim 1, Kim et al. teach wireless apparatus comprising a processor configured to acquire an index contributing to selection of a link for transmitting a high priority frame among a plurality of links forming multiple links with another wireless apparatus (see ref. fig. 27 and para 0283 – 0344 and claims 1-6 of the specification); and notify the another wireless apparatus of information for selection of the link on the basis of the index (see ref. fig. 27 and 28 and para 0283 – 0344 and claims 1-6 of the specification). Although, Kim et al. teach in para 0318 that STA supporting an extremely high throughput, which are normally high priority frames, but Kim et al. does not expressly teach that the frame has high priority, however in the same field of endeavor Williams et al. teach the such limitations (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al. by incorporating the teachings of Williams et al. because it will allow using well know prioritizing of frame in the system of Kim et al. The motivation is that by applying a well-known prioritizing of the frames will improve apparatus such as Kim et al. and improve transmitting of high priority frames in timely manner.
As per claim 2, the wireless apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the index includes at least one of a high priority frame rate indicating an occupancy of a high priority frame in a wireless frame transmitted in each link, and a delay time of transmission of a wireless frame in each link (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification). Same motivational statement applies here as in rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 3, the wireless apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor notifies the another wireless apparatus of information of a link having a minimum high priority frame rate or information of a link having a minimum delay time as information for selection of the link , see Williams et al. (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification). Same motivational statement applies here as in rejection of claim 1.
.
As per claim 4, the wireless apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the processor includes information for selection of the link in a beacon and notifies the other wireless apparatus of the information Kim et al. (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6, para 0087of the specification).
As per claim 5, the wireless apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the processor includes information for selection of the link in a trigger frame and notifies the another wireless apparatus of the information Kim et al. (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification).
As per claim 6, the wireless apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the index includes at least one of a high priority frame rate indicating an occupancy of a high priority frame in a wireless frame transmitted in each link and a delay time of transmission of a wireless frame in each link, and the processor sets a transmission interval of the trigger frame according to a size of the high priority frame or the delay time Williams et al. (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification). Same motivational statement applies here as in rejection of claim 1.
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.
(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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Williams et al US Pat. 7,151,774.
As per claim 1, Williams et al. teach wireless apparatus comprising a processor configured to acquire an index contributing to selection of a link for transmitting a high priority frame among a plurality of links forming multiple links with another wireless apparatus (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification).and notify the another wireless apparatus of information for selection of the link on the basis of the index (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification).
As per claim 2, the wireless apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the index includes at least one of a high priority frame rate indicating an occupancy of a high priority frame in a wireless frame transmitted in each link, and a delay time of transmission of a wireless frame in each link (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification).
As per claim 3, the wireless apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor notifies the another wireless apparatus of information of a link having a minimum high priority frame rate or information of a link having a minimum delay time as information for selection of the link , see Williams et al. (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification).
As per claim 5, the wireless apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the processor includes information for selection of the link in a trigger frame and notifies the another wireless apparatus of the information Kim et al. (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification).
As per claim 6, the wireless apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the index includes at least one of a high priority frame rate indicating an occupancy of a high priority frame in a wireless frame transmitted in each link and a delay time of transmission of a wireless frame in each link, and the processor sets a transmission interval of the trigger frame according to a size of the high priority frame or the delay time Williams et al. (see ref. Abstract, fig. 6 elements 660, 680 and 690 col. 9 line 59 – col. 11 line 82 of the specification).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYAZ R SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM – 5 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, Debrah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights