DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the application filed 09/23/2024. Claims 1-40 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024, 02/27/2026, and 07/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12, 14-15, 25, 27-28, 34, and 40 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0249357 to Green et al. (hereafter Green) in view of US 2017/0063665 to Casebolt et al. (hereafter Casebolt).
Regarding claim 1, Green discloses a method for wireless communications at an access point (see Green, Fig 4A; ¶ 0023), comprising:
identifying that a communications band includes one or more first channels of a first dynamic frequency selection type and one or more second channels of a second dynamic frequency selection type (see Green, ¶ 0007: A station (STA) serving as a soft access point (SAP) in master mode may be configured to support communication over two radar channels (e.g., a primary and secondary channel) simultaneously. The STA may detect radar on the primary channel and move the primary channel to the secondary channel; ¶ 0038: The STA may access and communicate over channels reserved for radar applications (e.g., airport radar, weather radar, etc.). Accordingly, the STA may be configured to detect radar signals present in a channel (e.g., the device may support dynamic frequency selection (DFS) and change frequencies accordingly); ¶ 0053: STA 115-a may establish BSS functions via a primary channel and a secondary channel, each of which is within a radar subband. STA 115-a may perform a CAC for both channels before commencing communications. However, at some point STA 115-a may detect a radar signal from the radar 205 over the primary channel);
performing a channel availability check procedure to determine if radar is being used on one of the one or more first channels (see Green, ¶ 0007: the STA may then perform a channel availability check (CAC) on a radar subband. If the CAC is successful, the STA may establish a secondary channel on the radar subband (or move the primary channel to the radar subband) and advertise a dual bandwidth capacity; ¶ 0038: Before communicating over the new channel, the STA may wait a period of time (e.g., 60 seconds) to determine if the new channel is currently supporting radar applications (i.e., the STA may perform a channel availability check (CAC)). If the CAC is successful, the STA may advertise communication abilities associated with the new channel; ¶ 0046: A master mode STA 115 may select a channel in a radar subband, or in a non-radar subband. If the new channel is in a radar subband, the STA 115 may perform a channel availability check (CAC) by listening for radar signals on the new channel for a period of time (e.g., 60 seconds); ¶ 0053: Upon detection of the radar signal, STA 115-a may move the primary channel to the secondary channel); and
Green implicitly disclose transmitting, to a station during the channel availability check procedure, one or more beacons on at least one of the one or more second channels (see Green, ¶ 0047: A master mode STA 115 may advertise the communication abilities associated with the BSS channels. For instance, upon establishment of a primary channel the STA 115 may advertise single bandwidth capacity. The STA 115 may begin communications over the primary channel while performing a CAC on a channel in a radar subband…..).
Green implicitly but does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to a station during the channel availability check procedure, one or more beacons on at least one of the one or more second channels.
However, Casebolt discloses performing a channel availability check procedure to determine if radar is being used on one of the one or more first channels (see Casebolt, 0024: the master device 102 can switch over to a DFS channel and perform a CAC check on the DFS channel; ¶ 0049: the CAC check may be performed to clear a DFS channel for radar or other preferred uses before using the channel. For example, the master device may use the DFS channel if there is no radar or other applications currently using the DFS channel); and
transmitting, to a station during the channel availability check procedure, one or more beacons on at least one of the one or more second channels (see Casebolt, 0024: the master device 102 can switch over to a DFS channel within a short time such as 1 millisecond and perform CAC for at least a second predetermined amount of time such as 93 milliseconds, or any other suitable time. After performing the CAC, the master device 102 can switch over to a non-DFS channel within another short period of time such as 1 millisecond and send another beacon 116 to the subordinate device 104 via the master radio again; ¶ 0026: during in-service monitoring, the master device 102 can begin to transmit beacons at regular intervals, such as every 100 milliseconds or any other suitable time period, on the DFS channel; ¶ 0040: the master device may again start the CAC cycle by transmitting a beacon to the subordinate device as described in block 304 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Casebolt and incorporate it into the system of Green to achieve an improved channel availability check and prevent interference in the communication system (see Casebolt, ¶ 0001 and ¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 2, Green in view of Casebolt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more first channels of the first dynamic frequency selection type are dynamic frequency selection channels, and the one or more second channels of the second dynamic frequency selection type are non-dynamic frequency selection channels (see Green, ¶ 0046: A master mode STA 115 may select a channel in a radar subband, or in a non-radar subband. If the new channel is in a radar subband, the STA 115 may perform a channel availability check (CAC) by listening for radar signals on the new channel for a period of time (e.g., 60 seconds)).
Also, Casebolt discloses wherein the one or more first channels of the first dynamic frequency selection type are dynamic frequency selection channels, and the one or more second channels of the second dynamic frequency selection type are non-dynamic frequency selection channels (see Casebolt, ¶ 0026: The master device 102 may thus be able to monitor for radar while in a receiver mode. If the master device 102 detects radar during in-service monitoring, the master device 102 will communicate to the subordinate device 104 to vacate the DFS channel and move to a non-DFS channel. For example, the master device 102 can initiate a new connection on the non-DFS channel and send a beacon to the subordinate device 104 with the new channel).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Casebolt and incorporate it into the system of Green to achieve an improved channel availability check and prevent interference in the communication system (see Casebolt, ¶ 0001 and ¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 12, Green in view of Casebolt discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the access point comprises a phone; and the station comprises a virtual reality device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the access point to be a phone and the station to be a virtual reality device based on user design preference since it is well-known in the art to perform this teaching.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 2.
Regarding claim 25, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 12. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 12.
Regarding claim 27, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 2.
Regarding claim 34, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 8.
Regarding claim 40, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17, 20-24, 26, 29-30, and 33-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Casebolt and further in view of US 2017/0123049 to Tsai et al. (hereafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 3, Green in view of Casebolt discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: updating a bitmap during the channel availability check procedure to indicate that the one or more first channels are unavailable for transmission, wherein transmitting the one or more beacons is based at least in part on updating the bitmap.
However, Tsai discloses updating a bitmap during the channel availability check procedure to indicate that the one or more first channels are unavailable for transmission, wherein transmitting the one or more beacons is based at least in part on updating the bitmap (see Tsai, ¶ 0039: signaling availability of one or more DFS channels by simultaneous transmission of one or more beacon signals; (b) transmitting a listing of both the authorized available DFS channels, herein referred to as a whitelist, and the prohibited DFS channels in which a potential radar signal has been detected, herein referred to as a blacklist, along with control signals and a time-stamp signal, herein referred to as a dead-man switch timer via an associated non-DFS channel; ¶ 0059: The period X available for non-continuous CAC scanning before switching to transmit and sequentially beaconing the previously whitelisted CAC scanned channels is reduced by n for each of the previously whitelisted CAC scanned channels….. This is repeated until 60 seconds of non-continuous CAC scanning is accumulated for the current channel 409. If no radar pattern is detected the channel is marked in the whitelist 410. If a radar pattern is detected, the channel is marked in the blacklist 407 and the radio can immediately switch to the next DFS channel to be CAC scanned).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Tsai and incorporate it into the system of Green to avoid interference and congestion in the communication system (see Tsai, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 4, Green in view of Casebolt and Tsai discloses the method of claim 3, Green does not explicitly disclose further comprising: including the bitmap in the one or more beacons transmitted to the station during the channel availability check procedure.
However, Tsai discloses including the bitmap in the one or more beacons transmitted to the station during the channel availability check procedure (see Tsai, ¶ 0039: signaling availability of one or more DFS channels by simultaneous transmission of one or more beacon signals).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Tsai and incorporate it into the system of Green to avoid interference and congestion in the communication system (see Tsai, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 7, Green in view of Casebolt and Tsai discloses the method of claim 3, Casebolt and Tsai discloses transmitting the bitmap in the beacon(see Tsai, ¶ 0039: signaling availability of one or more DFS channels by simultaneous transmission of one or more beacon signals) but does not explicitly disclose wherein including the bitmap in the one or more beacons further comprises: transmitting the bitmap in an extremely high throughput operation information element (IE) of the one or more beacons.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement transmitting the bitmap in an extremely high throughput operation information element (IE) of the one or more beacons based on user design preference since it is well-known in the art to perform this teaching.
Regarding claim 8, Green in view of Casebolt and Tsai discloses the method of claim 3, Green does not explicitly disclose further comprising: including, in the one or more beacons and with the bitmap, an indication of a duration for which the bitmap is valid.
However, Tsai discloses including, in the one or more beacons and with the bitmap, an indication of a duration for which the bitmap is valid (see Tsai, ¶ 0039; ¶ 0043; ¶ 0050: the agility agent 200 sends the time-stamp signal, or dead-man switch timer, with communications to ensure that the devices do not use the information, including the whitelist, beyond the useful lifetime of the information. For example, a whitelist will only be valid for certain period of time. The time-stamp signal avoids using noncompliant DFS channels by ensuring that a device will not use the whitelist beyond its useful lifetime).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Tsai and incorporate it into the system of Green to avoid interference and congestion in the communication system (see Tsai, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 9, Green in view of Casebolt and Tsai discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the duration is indicated in units of time, transmission time intervals, or beacons (see Tsai, ¶ 0039; ¶ 0050: the agility agent 200 sends the time-stamp signal, or dead-man switch timer, with communications to ensure that the devices do not use the information, including the whitelist, beyond the useful lifetime of the information. For example, a whitelist will only be valid for certain period of time. The time-stamp signal avoids using noncompliant DFS channels by ensuring that a device will not use the whitelist beyond its useful lifetime).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Tsai and incorporate it into the system of Green to avoid interference and congestion in the communication system (see Tsai, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 10, Green in view of Casebolt and Tsai discloses the method of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining that the communications band is associated with a low- latency network, wherein updating the bitmap is based at least in part on the determining.
However, since Casebolt disclose performing DFS operation based on latency (see Casebolt, ¶ 0012), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to update bitmap based on low-latency communications based on user design preference to achieve efficient communication.
Regarding claim 11, Green in view of Casebolt and Tsai discloses the method of claim 3, Tsai disclose wherein each bit of the bitmap corresponds to one of the one or more first channels or one of the one or more second channels (see Tsai, ¶ 0039: transmitting a listing of both the authorized available DFS channels, herein referred to as a whitelist, and the prohibited DFS channels in which a potential radar signal has been detected, herein referred to as a blacklist).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Tsai and incorporate it into the system of Green to avoid interference and congestion in the communication system (see Tsai, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 13, Green in view of Casebolt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether detected radar on the one or more first channels satisfies a threshold amount of interference (see Green, ¶ 0013), but does not explicitly disclose monitoring, during the channel availability check procedure while simultaneously transmitting the one or more beacons, the one or more first channels for radar use.
However, Tsai discloses monitoring, during the channel availability check procedure while simultaneously transmitting the one or more beacons, the one or more first channels for radar use (see Tsai, ¶ 0055; ¶ 0058).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Tsai and incorporate it into the system of Green to avoid interference and congestion in the communication system (see Tsai, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 8.
Regarding claim 22, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 9.
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 10. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 10.
Regarding claim 24, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 11. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 11.
Regarding claim 26, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 13. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 13.
Regarding claim 29, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 30, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 4.
Regarding claim 33, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 7.
Regarding claim 34, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 8.
Regarding claim 35, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 9.
Regarding claim 36, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 10. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 10.
Regarding claim 37, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 11. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 11.
Regarding claim 39, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 13. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 18, 19, 31, and 32 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,184,949
US 11,096,151
US 11,606,791
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
