DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application as originally filed on 10/28//2024.
Status of the Claim:
Claims 1-12 are cancelled.
Claims 13-32 are pending. The detail office action to the pending claims is as shown below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to the Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/28/2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner. Initialed copy of the PTO-1449 is included in this correspondence. Non-patent literature document, Cite. No. 3 was not considered because the applicant DID NOT provide an English translated copy of said Non-Patent Literature document with the and the Examiner was unable to locate a copy of the NPL references.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Objections
Each of claims 21, 22, 24-29, 32 recite transitional words such as wherein, further when they are imposing additional restrictions or constraints. However, each of these claims is missing a comma “,’ before the “wherein” or “further” transitional words, to link up the independent clauses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Dependent claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, because claims 21 and 22, as currently presented, depend on cancelled claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 13, 23, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10383138 to Huang et al. (“Huang”) in view of DE102005008693 to Schnagl, Johann (“Schnagl”) (The remarks and/or references placed in the parentheses apply to the prior art)
RE claim 13, Huang discloses a communication device (e.g. Fig. 2) comprising: at least one interface for communication with a first wireless transceiver (e.g. 1920 of Fig. 19); and one or more processors (e.g. 1902 of Fig. 19) configured to: receive information about an upcoming communication via a second wireless transceiver (e.g. Huang, Col. 6, lines 20-34, … receives a notification frame that there will be overlap in the communication between networks (e.g. the NAN and non-NAN networks)); and control the first wireless transceiver to emit a signal before the upcoming communication via the second wireless transceiver (e.g. Huang, (col. 4, lines 35-40, col. 5, line 35-45), the NAN device may determine that the conflict does not occur in the same cycle but rather in a future or later cycle. The NAN device can then send one or more frames in the first cycle to specify a future conflict or in anticipation of future conflicts between NAN communications, so that other NAN devices wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on, among many other choices.)
While Huang’s invention describes receiving a notification frame that there will be overlap in the communication between networks; the NAN device may determining the conflict does not occur in the same cycle but rather in a future or later cycle and the NAN device can then send one or more frames in the first cycle to specify a future conflict or in anticipation of future conflicts between NAN communications, so that other NAN devices wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on, among many other choices, as discussed above, and while it is well within the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art to comprehend that in emitting a signal which is the process of sending a message to notify others that an event has occurred and thereby triggering actions, the subject matter of claim 13 differs from Huang in that Huang does not expressly recite the claims language “emit a signal” as recited. However, Schnagl teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, said language (see for example, Abstract and Claim of Schnagl, which describe a motor vehicle (1) comprising a user station (1) emits safety-related status data to a receiving station of a motor vehicle (2) located in the vicinity. Hence the prior art includes each element/feature as claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Huang with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Schnagl’s teaching so that other devices, either wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on among many other choices. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 13.
RE claim 23, Huang discloses a communication method (e.g. Fig. 2) comprising: receiving information about an upcoming communication via a second wireless transceiver (e.g. Huang, Col. 6, lines 20-34, … receives a notification frame that there will be overlap in the communication between networks (e.g. the NAN and non-NAN networks)); and controlling a first wireless transceiver to emit a signal before the upcoming communication via the second wireless transceiver (e.g. Huang, (col. 4, lines 35-40, col. 5, line 35-45), the NAN device may determine that the conflict does not occur in the same cycle but rather in a future or later cycle. The NAN device can then send one or more frames in the first cycle to specify a future conflict or in anticipation of future conflicts between NAN communications, so that other NAN devices wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on, among many other choices.)
While Huang’s invention describes receiving a notification frame that there will be overlap in the communication between networks; and determining a conflict does not occur in the same time cycle but rather in a future or later cycle and then send one or more frames in the first cycle to specify a future conflict or in anticipation of future conflicts between network devices so that other devices wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on, among many other choices, as discussed above, and while it is well within the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art to comprehend that in emitting a signal which is the process of sending a message to notify others that an event has occurred and thereby triggering actions, the subject matter of claim 23 differs from Huang in that Huang does not expressly recite the claims language “emit a signal” as recited. However, Schnagl teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, said language (see for example, Abstract and Claim of Schnagl, which describe a motor vehicle (1) comprising a user station (1) emits safety-related status data to a receiving station of a motor vehicle (2) located in the vicinity. Hence the prior art includes each element/feature as claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Huang with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Schnagl’s teaching so that other devices, either wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on among many other choices. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 23.
RE claim 31, Huang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed on a processor (e.g. Huang, Col. 18, lines 25-65), causes the processor to: receive information about an upcoming communication via a second wireless transceiver (e.g. Huang, Col. 6, lines 20-34, … receives a notification frame that there will be overlap in the communication between networks (e.g. the NAN and non-NAN networks)); and control the first wireless transceiver to emit a signal before the upcoming communication via the second wireless transceiver (e.g. Huang, (col. 4, lines 35-40, col. 5, line 35-45), the NAN device may determine that the conflict does not occur in the same cycle but rather in a future or later cycle. The NAN device can then send one or more frames in the first cycle to specify a future conflict or in anticipation of future conflicts between NAN communications, so that other NAN devices wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on, among many other choices.)
While Huang’s invention describes receiving a notification frame that there will be overlap in the communication between networks; the NAN device may determining the conflict does not occur in the same cycle but rather in a future or later cycle and the NAN device can then send one or more frames in the first cycle to specify a future conflict or in anticipation of future conflicts between NAN communications, so that other NAN devices wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on, among many other choices, as discussed above, and while it is well within the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art to comprehend that in emitting a signal which is the process of sending a message to notify others that an event has occurred and thereby triggering actions, the subject matter of claim 31 differs from Huang in that Huang does not expressly recite the claims language “emit a signal” as recited. However, Schnagl teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, said language (see for example, Abstract and Claim of Schnagl, which describe a motor vehicle (1) comprising a user station (1) emits safety-related status data to a receiving station of a motor vehicle (2) located in the vicinity. Hence the prior art includes each element/feature as claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Huang with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Schnagl’s teaching so that other devices, either wait for the next available non-conflicting period, or cancel the data transmission, or choose a different channel to send the data on among many other choices. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 31.
Objected but Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20, 24-30, 32 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their respective base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are (See the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)). These prior arts are considered pertinent because they relate generally to the use of data communications and, more particularly, to the use of data communications that provide short pulse width modulation (PWM) code (SPC) protocol communications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU TADESE whose telephone number is (571)272-2478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9 - 5 PM 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, Chieh M. Fan can be reached on 571.272.3042. 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.
/BERHANU TADESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632