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 .
This communication is responsive to application no. 18/908,223 filed on 10/07/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and has been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 10/07/2024 is considered.
The drawings filed on 10/07/2024 is noted.
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.
7. Claims 1, 8, 15, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitation of: “receiving from an access point, a first transmission indicating that one or more STAs intends to perform sectorized operation”.
The limitation of receiving from an access point, a first transmission indicating that one or more STAs intends to perform sectorized operation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a station transmit a first transmission indicating one or more other STAs intends to perform sectorized operation in a sector to perform both receiving and indicating steps. The station in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer configured to support coordinated and cooperative sectorized transmissions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of sending, to the AP, a second transmission indicating that the STA is incapable of supporting the sectorized operation. Thus, taken alone, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US PG PUB 2015/0139116).
As per claims 1, 3, and 5-7, wang discloses a sector discovery method of an access point (AP) in a wireless local area.
A method comprising:
Receiving, from access point, a first transmission indicating that one or more other STAs intends to perform sectorized operation in a sector; and sending, to the AP, a second transmission indicating that the STA is incapable of supporting the sectorized operation (see., figs 1-4, paragraphs 0001-0038).
As per claim 2, Wang discloses the claimed limitations as stated in 1 above, the second transmission enables the AP to configure a network allocation vector (NAV) for the sectorized operation with the one or more other STAs (see., paragraph 0015).
As per claims 8, 10, and 12-14, Wang discloses a sector discovery method of an access point (AP) in a wireless local area.
A receiver, configured to receive, from an access point (AP), a first transmission indicating that one or more other STAs intend to perform sectorized operation in a sector; and a transmitter configured to transmit, to the AP, a second transmission indicating that the STA is incapable of supporting the sectorized operation (see., Figs 1-4, paragraphs 0001-0038).
As per claim 9, Wang discloses the claimed limitations as stated in 1 above, the second transmission enables the AP to configure a network allocation vector (NAV) for the sectorized operation with the one or more other STAs (see., paragraph 0015).
As per claims 15, 17, and 19-20, Wang discloses a sector discovery method of an access point (AP) in a wireless local area.
A transmitter configured to transmit, to a station (STA), a first transmission indicating that one or more other STAs will perform sectorized operation in a sector; and a receiver configured to receive, from the STA, a second transmission indicating that the STA is incapable of supporting the sectorized operation (see., paragraphs 0001-0036).receiver, configured to receive, from an access point (AP), a first transmission indicating that one or more other STAs intend to perform sectorized operation in a sector; and a transmitter configured to transmit, to the AP, a second transmission indicating that the STA is incapable of supporting the sectorized operation (see., Figs 1-4, paragraphs 0001-0038).
As per claim 16, Wang discloses the claimed limitations as stated in 1 above, the second transmission enables the AP to configure a network allocation vector (NAV) for the sectorized operation with the one or more other STAs (see., paragraph 0015).
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 4, 11, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PG PUB 2015/0139116) in view of Kwon et al. (US PG PUB 2013/0272137).
As per claims 4, 11, and 18 wang discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claims 1 and 3 above.
Wang disclose NDP frames but fails to disclose wherein the CTS frame is a short CTS null data packet.
However, Kwon teaches wherein each NDP frame includes short Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID) information of the AP, the short BSSID information has a length shorter than a full BSSID of the AP (Figure 1, 4 and 8; Paragraph [0027-0028 and 0033] partial BSSID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the teachings of Wang with the teachings of Kwon. Kwon provides a solution which enables determining a partial basic service set identification number by the access point so as to avoid using the basic service set identification number as another access point (Kwon Abstract; Paragraph [0002-0009 and 0040]).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 7:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights