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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/854,851 filed on 7 October 2024. This application claims 371 priority to PCT/JP2022/017871 filed on 14 April 2022. The preliminary amendment filed on 7 October 2024 amends claims 1-4, 6, and 7, and presents arguments is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “modules” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the signal receptor receives a wireless communication signal” in claim 1 “the signal transmitter performs wireless transmission based on the determination” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite the limitation “the access control circuitry performs determination of carrier sensing not only for a channel of occupied frequencies, but also for an adjacent channel.” It is not clear if the “adjacent channel” is required for the limitation. Thus, this claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation to mean “the access control circuitry performs determination of carrier sensing for a channel of occupied frequencies and an adjacent channel.”
Claims 2-5 fail to cure the deficiencies of their parent claim(s) and, therefore, inherit the rejections.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2023/0337281 A1 to Jiao et al and in view of US PGPUB 2023/0328776 A1 to Shinohara et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Jiao discloses a wireless communication device (FIG. 2, Relay Device 210) comprising a plurality of wireless communication modules including a signal receptor, wherein: the signal receptor receives a wireless communication signal (0115-0116 provides for receiving a detection that a channel is idle). Jiao doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the determination is a determination of carrier sensing not only for a channel of occupied frequencies, but also for an adjacent channel; and the signal transmitter performs wireless transmission based on the determination. Shinohara, in a similar field of endeavor, a plurality of wireless communication modules including an access control circuitry and a signal transmitter, wherein: the access control circuitry performs determination of carrier sensing not only for a channel of occupied frequencies (FIG. 10 and 0067-0069 provides for center carrier sense band CSC), but also for an adjacent channel (FIG. 10 and 0067-0069 provides for adjacent carrier sense band CSA); and the signal transmitter performs wireless transmission based on the determination (0069 provides for transmit improved communications in the wireless system). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Shinohara for sensing adjacent channels in a frequency spectrum. The channel sensing of Shinohara, when implemented with the relay system of the Jiao system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to suppress interference in order to improve communication quality in the wireless system. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the channel sensing of Shinohara with the relay system of the Jiao system for the desirable purpose of minimizing leakage and improving communication quality.
Regarding Claim 2, the Jiao/Shinohara system discloses the wireless communication device according to claim 1, wherein the access control circuitry changes a carrier sensing threshold between the channel of the occupied frequencies and the adjacent channel (Shinohara, 0085-0086 provides for expanding the carrier sense threshold). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the Jiao/Shinohara system discloses the wireless communication device according to claim 1, wherein the access control circuitry detects a reception state of another wireless communication module (Shinohara, 0062 provides for monitoring a reception state for a fixed time), and changes the determination based on the reception state (Shinohara, 0063-0064 provides for processing the desired transmission channel). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, similar rejection where the wireless communication device of claim 1 teaches the wireless communication method of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, similar rejection where the wireless communication device of claim 1 teaches the wireless communication system of claim 7.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Jiao/Shinohara system as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2023/0139852 A1 to Kanaya et al.
Regarding Claim 4, the Jiao/Shinohara system discloses the wireless communication device according to claim 1. The Jiao/Shinohara system doesn’t explicitly disclose the wireless communication signal has a COLOR field; and the access control circuitry changes a carrier sensing threshold based on a value of the COLOR field. Kanaya, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses the wireless communication signal has a COLOR field (0071 provides for a basis service set BSS color); and the access control circuitry changes a carrier sensing threshold based on a value of the COLOR field (0071 provides for reducing a carrier sensing threshold). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Kanaya for carrier sensing adjustments based on a BSS color. The BSS color of Kanaya, when implemented with the relay system of the Jiao/Shinohara system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust a sensing threshold in order to adjust sensing based on real-time indicators. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the BSS color of Kanaya with the relay system of the Jiao/Shinohara system for the desirable purpose of adjusting sensing thresholds in response to a different BSS color.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Jiao/Shinohara system as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2022/0417992 A1 to Zhang.
Regarding Claim 5, the Jiao/Shinohara system discloses the wireless communication device according to claim 1. The Jiao/Shinohara system doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the wireless communication module includes a reception filter covering the channel of the occupied frequencies and the adjacent channel. Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses wherein the wireless communication module includes a reception filter covering the channel of the occupied frequencies and the adjacent channel (0320 and 0333 provides for a spatial domain reception filter). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Zhang for applying a reception filter. The reception filter of Zhang, when implemented with the relay system of the Jiao/Shinohara system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust channel sensing in order to adjust sensing in a first sub-band. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the reception filter of Zhang with the relay system of the Jiao/Shinohara system for the desirable purpose of adjusting transmitting in a sub-band.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2023/0032578 A1 to Kim et al discloses a carrier sensing mechanism associated with the size of a contention window.
US PGPUB 2023/0067905 A1 to Luo et al discloses a relay device that performs channel sensing to determine if the channel is occupied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHQUITA GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights