909DETAILED 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 .
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.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2023/0389099) in view of Changlani (US 2021/0409961)
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Li teaches a communication device, comprising:
a central processing unit (CPU), configured to:
configure a first non-dynamic frequency selection (non-DFS) channel as an in-use channel, in response to the first target channel being a DFS channel (¶ [0036], see specifically AP moves from first DFS channel to non-DFS channel);
a channel availability check (CAC) circuit, coupled to the CPU and configured to:
perform a first CAC for the first target channel to generate a first CAC result, in response to the first target channel being the DFS channel (¶ [0037], see specifically until the AP clears the DFS channel).
and a communication circuit, coupled to the CPU and configured to: perform at least one communication operation on the first non-DFS channel during the first CAC (¶ [0037], see specifically while the AP clears the CAC on the DFS channel); and
perform the at least one communication operation on the first target channel, in response to the first CAC result being successful (¶ [0077], see specifically CAC is cleared.)
Li fails to explicitly teach select a first target channel from a plurality of candidate target channel.
Changlani from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches select a first target channel from a plurality of candidate target channels (¶ [0046], see specifically list of both DFS and non-dfs channels)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to maintain a list of available channels in the system of Li as taught by Changlani.
The motivation is that the there are multiple channels within the 5G WiFi band, and it would be obvious to keep track of them and rank them in the system of Li as it would allow for better channel selection as the device can select channels in ranked order.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Li teaches the CPU is further configured to: request the CAC circuit to perform the first CAC for the first target channel in response to the first target channel being the DFS channel, after selecting the first target channel from the plurality of candidate target channel (¶ [0037], see specifically while the AP clears the CAC on the DFS channel)
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Li teaches the CPU is further configured to perform at least one of following operations:
selecting a second target channel from the plurality of candidate target channel, in response to the first CAC result being failed (¶ [0080], see specifically not cleared); and
selecting the second target channel from the plurality of candidate target channel, in response to a radar signal being detected on the first target channel when performing the at least one communication operation on the first target channel (¶ [0080], see specifically not cleared.)
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Li teaches the CAC circuit is further configured to: perform a second CAC for the second target channel to generate a second CAC result, in response to the second target channel being the DFS channel; and the communication circuit is further configured to: perform the at least one communication operation on the second target channel, in response to the second CAC result being successful (¶ [0037], see specifically while the AP clears the CAC on the DFS channel)
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Li the CPU is further configured to perform at least one of following operations:
requesting the CAC circuit to perform the second CAC for the second target channel in response to the second target channel being the DFS channel, after selecting the second target channel from the plurality of candidate target channel (¶ [0037], see specifically while the AP clears the CAC on the DFS channel); and
configuring a second non-DFS channel as an in-use channel, in response to the second target channel being the DFS channel (¶ [0037], see specifically while the AP clears the CAC on the DFS channel).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Li teaches the communication circuit is further configured to: perform the at least one communication operation on the second non-DFS channel during the second CAC (¶ [0036], see specifically AP moves from first DFS channel to non-DFS channel);.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Li teaches the CPU is further configured to perform at least one of following operations:
selecting a third target channel from the plurality of candidate target channel, in response to the second CAC result being failed (¶ [0080], see specifically not cleared); and
selecting the third target channel from the plurality of candidate target channel, in response to a radar signal being detected on the second target channel when performing the at least one communication operation on the second target channel (¶ [0080], see specifically not cleared.)
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Li teaches the communication circuit is further configured to: perform the at least one communication operation on the first target channel, in response to the first target channel being not the DFS channel (¶ [0007], see specifically non-DFS channel. Examiner’s note: A non-DFS channel is known to not require this type of scanning as it is not shared with radar or other systems that have priority).
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Li teaches an operation of performing the at least one communication operation comprises at least one of following operations: transmitting at least one signal to other communication device; and receiving the at least one signal from the other communication device (¶ [0049], see specifically interlink communication or ¶ [0050], see specifically intralink communication.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights