DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 19 May 2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 14, 16-18 are amended.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8 and 14 recite “…executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count; and sending a wake up packet to a second node on the second channel in response to the backoff count ending”. For consistency and clarity, please amend to recite “…executing, on a second channel, a backoff backed on the backoff count ending”.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are also objected to since they are dependent upon the objected claims set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the Objection to the Specification, specifically the Title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Specification, specifically the Title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s request, see page 8, filed 19 May 2026, with respect holding the Double Patenting Rejection in Abeyance have been fully considered and are unpersuasive. The Double Patenting Rejection in Abeyance has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see 9, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the Objections to Claims 4, 11 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections to Claims 4, 11 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see 9, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 112 Rejections of Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 14 and 16-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112 Rejections of Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 14 and 16-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below.
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 14, the Applicant argues:
(1) Claim 1, as amended, recites “generating, by [[a]] the first node, a backoff count based on the CW1” “executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count” and “sending a wake up packet to a second node on the second channel in response to the backoff ending.” Emphasis added. Notably, the backoff count is based on the first contention window (CW1) maintained on the first channel.
The Office Action asserts that Hirsch teaches sending a packet on a second channel after a backoff ends. Office Action, p. 14. However, Hirsch is directed to providing to independent backoff periods that are merely timed to align.
Hirsch also specifically teaches that the second backoff period is shorter than the random backoff period for the first channel so that the backoff periods for the first and second channels end at about the same time. Hirsch, para. [0051]. Notably, Hirsch teaches that transmission of the first data communication in the first channel and the second data communication on the second channel is performed after the random access, and the second backoff period. Hirsch, para. [0040]. However, Hirsch only teaches that the random backoff periods are aligned to end about the same time.
Additionally, Hirsch teaches that the second backoff period is an interframe space (PIFS), rather than being set based on the contention window for the first channel. Nothing in Hirsch teaches or suggests that a data transmission is sent on the second channel based on the first channel’s contention window. Indeed, Hirsch specifically teaches that the second channel has its own backoff that is separate and different from the random backoff of the first channel.
Shellhammer fails to cure the deficiencies of Hirsch. Shellhammer is cited for the “wake up packet” terminology, but is only about wake-up packet content and design, without teaching or suggesting any wake-up packet being sent on a second channel after a backoff for a different channels ends.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully asserts that Hirsch and Shellhammer fail to teach or render obvious each element of Claim 1. Additionally, none of the remaining cited references cure the deficiencies of Hirsch and Shellhammer. Accordingly, the cited references, taken single, or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or in any way render obvious the features of Claim 1. Thus, Claim 1 as a whole is patentable over the cited references. Applicant further asserts that Claims 8 and 14 recite features similar to those discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and are, therefore, patentable over the cited references for similar reasons [Remarks, pages 9-11].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
As per the first argument,
As indicated in the previous rejection and below, Hirsch discloses generating (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 29-30, 32-35 and 44; sending/transmitted), by the first node (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; by a first node/AP 105-a), a backoff count based on the CW1 (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 34-37; a backoff count/(backoff count) based on the CW1/t1 to t2 on Ch. 1);
sending a packet to a second node on the second channel in response to the backoff count ending (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 29-30, 32-35 and 44; sending/transmitted a packet/(channel reservation signal) to a second node/(AP or STA) on a second channel/(second channel) in response to the backoff count ends/backoff on channel 1 ends at t2).
In other words, a first node AP 105-a transmits a backoff count based on the time 1 to time 2 on Channel 1. Additionally, Hirsch discloses transmitting a channel reservation signal to a AP or STA on a second channel in response to the backoff on channel 1 ending at t2.
Park discloses a method, comprising:
executing (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; executing/generates), on a second channel (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; on a second channel/operating channel), a backoff based on the backoff count (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; a backoff/(backoff timer) based on the backoff count/backoff timer is decreased until the backoff timer reaches zero).
In other words, Park discloses generating, on an operating channel, a backoff timer based on the backoff timer decreasing until the timer reaches zero.
Therefore, the combination of Hirsch and Park discloses the limitations “generating, by the first node, a backoff count based on the CW1” and “executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count” and “sending a wake up packet to a second node on the second channel in response to the backoff ending”.
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, 7-8, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al (US 2017/0134989 A1), hereinafter Hirsch, in view of Shellhammer et al (US 2018/0115952 A1), hereinafter Shellhammer, and further in view of Park et al (US 2016/0183187 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 1, Hirsch discloses a method, comprising:
maintaining, by a first node (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; by a first node/AP 105-a), a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 34-37; a first contention window (CW1)/(t1 to t2 on Ch. 1) on a first channel/first channel);
generating (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 29-30, 32-35 and 44; sending/transmitted), by the first node (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; by a first node/AP 105-a), a backoff count based on the CW1 (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 34-37; a backoff count/(backoff count) based on the CW1/t1 to t2 on Ch. 1); and
sending a packet to a second node on the second channel in response to the backoff count ending (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 29-30, 32-35 and 44; sending/transmitted a packet/(channel reservation signal) to a second node/(AP or STA) on a second channel/(second channel) in response to the backoff count ends/backoff on channel 1 ends at t2).
Although Hirsch sending a packet to a second node on a second channel as set forth above,
Hirsch does not explicitly disclose sending a “wake up packet” to a second node on a second channel.
However, Shellhammer discloses a method, comprising:
sending a wake up packet to a second node on a second channel in response to the backoff count ends (see Figure 2 and page 5, paragraph 52, lines 1-3; sending/transmitting a wake up/(wakeup) packet/message to a second node/(wireless device 115-a) on a second channel/(wireless link 210) (provisional 62/411,440; see Figure 2 and page 12, paragraph 55, lines 1-3)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “sending a “wake up packet” to a second node on a second channel as taught by Shellhammer in the system of Hirs to provide methods, systems, devices or apparatuses that support physical layer design for a wakeup receiver (WUR) (see page 5, lines 1-2 and (provisional, see page 1, paragraph 4, lines 1-2 of Shellhammer).
Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses maintaining a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count”.
However Park discloses a method, comprising:
executing (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; executing/generates), on a second channel (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; on a second channel/operating channel), a backoff based on the backoff count (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; a backoff/(backoff timer) based on the backoff count/backoff timer is decreased until the backoff timer reaches zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count” as taught by Park in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer to alleviate collisions on an operation channel (see page 5, paragraph 43, lines 12-13 of Park).
Regarding Claim 7, Hirsch discloses the method, wherein the first contention window (CW1) on the first channel is maintained while the second channel is idle (see Figures 1 and 4A and paragraphs 30, 35-40 and 52; wherein the first contention window (CW1)/(t1 to t2 on Ch. 1) on the first channel/(first channel) is maintained/maintained while the second channel/(second channel) is idle/idle).
Regarding Claim 8, Hirsch discloses a first node (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; a first node/AP 105-a), comprising:
a main transceiver (see Figure 5A and paragraph 57; a main transceiver/transceiver(s) 540);
one or more processors (see Figure 5A and paragraph 51; one or more processors/processor 510); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable memory connected to the one or more processors and including computer program code (see Figure 5A and paragraph 58; at least one non-transitory computer readable memory/(memory 520) connected to the one or more processors/(processor 510) and including computer program code/computer-executable software (SW) code 525), wherein the first node is an access point (AP) (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; wherein the first node/AP 105-a) is an access point (AP)/AP 105), and wherein the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory and the computer program code are configured (see Figure 5A and paragraph 58; and wherein the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory/(memory 520) and the computer program code/(computer-executable software (SW) code 525) are configured), with the one or more processors (see Figure 5A and paragraph 58; with the one or more processors/processor 510), to cause the first node (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; to cause the first node/AP 105-a) to perform at least:
maintaining a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 34-37; maintaining a first contention window (CW1)/(t1 to t2 on Ch. 1) on a first channel/first channel);
generating a backoff count based on CW1 (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 34-37; generating/determine a backoff count/(backoff count) based on CW1/t1 to t2 on Ch. 1); and
sending a packet to a second node on a second channel in response to the backoff count ending (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 29-30, 32-35 and 44; sending/transmitted a packet/(channel reservation signal) to a second node/(AP or STA) on a second channel/(second channel) in response to the backoff count ending/backoff on channel 1 ends at t2).
Although Hirsch sending a channel reservation signal to a second node on a second channel as set forth above,
Hirsch does not explicitly disclose sending a “wake up packet” to a second node on a second channel.
However, Shellhammer discloses a first node, comprising:
sending a wake up packet to a second node on a second channel in response to the backoff count ends (see Figure 2 and page 5, paragraph 52, lines 1-3; sending/transmitting a wake up/(wakeup) packet/message to a second node/(wireless device 115-a) on a second channel/(wireless link 210) (provisional 62/411,440; see Figure 2 and page 12, paragraph 55, lines 1-3)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “sending a “wake up packet” to a second node on a second channel as taught by Shellhammer in the system of Hirs to provide methods, systems, devices or apparatuses that support physical layer design for a wakeup receiver (WUR) (see page 5, lines 1-2 and (provisional, see page 1, paragraph 4, lines 1-2 of Shellhammer).
Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses maintaining a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count”.
However Park discloses a first node, comprising:
executing (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; executing/generates), on a second channel (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; on a second channel/operating channel), a backoff based on the backoff count (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; a backoff/(backoff timer) based on the backoff count/backoff timer is decreased until the backoff timer reaches zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count” as taught by Park in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer to alleviate collisions on an operation channel (see page 5, paragraph 43, lines 12-13 of Park).
Regarding Claim 14, Hirsch discloses an apparatus (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; an apparatus/AP 105-a), comprising:
one or more processors (see Figure 5A and paragraph 51; one or more processors/processor 510); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable memory connected to the one or more processors and including computer program code (see Figure 5A and paragraph 58; at least one non-transitory computer readable memory/(memory 520) connected to the one or more processors/(processor 510) and including computer program code/computer-executable software (SW) code 525), wherein the apparatus is a first node and an access point (AP) (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; wherein the apparatus/AP 105-a) is an access point (AP)/AP 105), and wherein the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory and the computer program code are configured (see Figure 5A and paragraph 58; and wherein the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory/(memory 520) and the computer program code/(computer-executable software (SW) code 525) are configured), with the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus (see Figure 5A and paragraph 58; with the one or more processors/processor 510), to cause the first node (see Figure 1 and Figure 5A and paragraphs 32 and 57; to cause the first node/AP 105-a) to perform at least:
maintaining a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 34-37; maintaining a first contention window (CW1)/(t1 to t2 on Ch. 1) on a first channel/first channel);
generating a backoff count based on CW1 (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 34-37; generating/determine a backoff count/(backoff count) based on CW1/t1 to t2 on Ch. 1); and
sending a packet to a second node on a second channel in response to the backoff count ending (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 29-30, 32-35 and 44; sending/transmitted a packet/(channel reservation signal) to a second node/(AP or STA) on a second channel/(second channel) in response to the backoff count ending/backoff on channel 1 ends at t2).
Although Hirsch sending a channel reservation signal to a second node on a second channel as set forth above,
Hirsch does not explicitly disclose sending a “wake up packet” to a second node on a second channel.
However, Shellhammer discloses an apparatus, comprising:
sending a wake up packet to a second node on a second channel in response to the backoff count ends (see Figure 2 and page 5, paragraph 52, lines 1-3; sending/transmitting a wake up/(wakeup) packet/message to a second node/(wireless device 115-a) on a second channel/(wireless link 210) (provisional 62/411,440; see Figure 2 and page 12, paragraph 55, lines 1-3)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “sending a “wake up packet” to a second node on a second channel as taught by Shellhammer in the system of Hirs to provide methods, systems, devices or apparatuses that support physical layer design for a wakeup receiver (WUR) (see page 5, lines 1-2 and (provisional, see page 1, paragraph 4, lines 1-2 of Shellhammer).
Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses maintaining a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count”.
However Park discloses an apparatus, comprising:
executing (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; executing/generates), on a second channel (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; on a second channel/operating channel), a backoff based on the backoff count (see Figure 3 and paragraph 43; a backoff/(backoff timer) based on the backoff count/backoff timer is decreased until the backoff timer reaches zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “executing, on a second channel, a backoff based on the backoff count” as taught by Park in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer to alleviate collisions on an operation channel (see page 5, paragraph 43, lines 12-13 of Park).
Regarding Claim 20, Hirsh discloses the apparatus, wherein the first contention window (CW1) on the first channel is maintained while the second channel is idle (see Figures 1 and 4A and paragraphs 30, 35-40 and 52; wherein the first contention window (CW1)/(t1 to t2 on Ch. 1) on the first channel/(first channel) is maintained/maintained while the second channel/(second channel) is idle/idle).
Claims 2, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch in view of Shellhammer and further in view of Yang et al (US 2017/0055287 A1), hereinafter Yang ‘287.
Regarding Claim 2, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses a wake up packet as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “wherein the method further comprises: selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet”.
However, Yang ‘287 discloses the method, wherein the method further comprises:
selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet (see page 1, paragraph 4; selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet/The EDCA is an enhanced mode for accessing a channel. Based on the CSMA/CA mechanism, the EDCA defines four Access Categories (AC), i.e., an AC Background (AC_BK), an AC Best Effort (AC_BE), and AC Video (AC_VI) and an AC Voice (AC_VO). Each AC defines a set of specific parameters for specifying statically a priority level of each AC when accessing a channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the method further comprises: selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet” as taught by Yang ‘287 in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer so the priority in which an AP accesses to a channel may be improved (see page 1, paragraph 6, lines 7-9 of Yang ‘287).
Regarding Claim 9, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses a wake up packet as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “to further cause the first node to perform selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet”.
However, Yang ‘287 discloses the first node, to further cause the first node to perform selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet (see page 1, paragraph 4; to further cause the first node to perform selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet /The EDCA is an enhanced mode for accessing a channel. Based on the CSMA/CA mechanism, the EDCA defines four Access Categories (AC), i.e., an AC Background (AC_BK), an AC Best Effort (AC_BE), and AC Video (AC_VI) and an AC Voice (AC_VO). Each AC defines a set of specific parameters for specifying statically a priority level of each AC when accessing a channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “to further cause the first node to perform selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet” as taught by Yang ‘287 in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer so the priority in which an AP accesses to a channel may be improved (see page 1, paragraph 6, lines 7-9 of Yang ‘287).
Regarding Claim 15, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses a wake up packet as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet”.
However, Yang ‘287 discloses the apparatus, to further cause the apparatus to perform:
selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet (see page 1, paragraph 4; selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet /The EDCA is an enhanced mode for accessing a channel. Based on the CSMA/CA mechanism, the EDCA defines four Access Categories (AC), i.e., an AC Background (AC_BK), an AC Best Effort (AC_BE), and AC Video (AC_VI) and an AC Voice (AC_VO). Each AC defines a set of specific parameters for specifying statically a priority level of each AC when accessing a channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “selecting an access category for sending the wake up packet” as taught by Yang ‘287 in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer so the priority in which an AP accesses to a channel may be improved (see page 1, paragraph 6, lines 7-9 of Yang ‘287).
Claims 3, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch in view of Shellhammer and further in view of Yang et al (US 2014/0079046 A1), hereinafter Yang ‘046.
Regarding Claim 3, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses maintaining a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “keeping the CW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully”.
However, Yang ‘046 discloses the method, wherein the method further comprises:
keeping the CW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully (see page 6, paragraph 94, lines 29-31; keeping/keep the CW1/CWmin unchanged/unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet/(data packet) being sent/sent unsuccessfully/unsuccessfully).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the method further comprises: keeping the CW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully” as taught by Yang ‘046 in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer to prevent a need of a dedicated device with powerful functions to implement central scheduling (see page 1, paragraph 3, lines 10-12 of Yang ‘046).
Regarding Claim 10, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses maintaining a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “to further cause the first node to keep the CW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully”.
However, Yang ‘046 discloses the first node, to further cause the first node to keep CW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully (see page 6, paragraph 94, lines 29-31; to further cause the first node/(backoff device) to keep/keep the CW1/CWmin unchanged/unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet/(data packet) being sent/sent unsuccessfully/unsuccessfully).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “to further cause the first node to keep theCW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully” as taught by Yang ‘046 in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer to prevent a need of a dedicated device with powerful functions to implement central scheduling (see page 1, paragraph 3, lines 10-12 of Yang ‘046).
Regarding Claim 16, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses maintaining a first contention window (CW1) on a first channel as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “keep the CW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully”.
However, Yang ‘046 discloses the apparatus, to further cause the apparatus to:
keep the CW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully (see page 6, paragraph 94, lines 29-31; keep/keep CW1/CWmin unchanged/unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet/(data packet) being sent/sent unsuccessfully/unsuccessfully).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “keep the CW1 unchanged on the second channel in response to the wake up packet being sent unsuccessfully” as taught by Yang ‘046 in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer to prevent a need of a dedicated device with powerful functions to implement central scheduling (see page 1, paragraph 3, lines 10-12 of Yang ‘046).
Claims 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch in view of Shellhammer and further in view of Seok et al (US 2016/0029373 A1), hereinafter Seok.
Regarding Claim 6, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses the method as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel” or “sending the 802.11 frame on the first channel in response to the backoff count ending”.
However, Seok discloses the method, wherein the method further comprises:
Seok discloses the method, wherein the method further comprises performing, in response to a main transceiver of the first node returning to the first channel to send an 802.11 frame:
reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel (see Figure 13 and paragraph 164; reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel/upon expiration of a backoff timer, an STA (e.g., STA1) may transmit an RTS PPDU to the AP according to an Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) protocol); and
sending the 802.11 frame on the first channel in response to the backoff count ending (see Figure 13 and paragraph 164; sending/transmit the 802.11 frame/PPDU on the first channel/channel in response to the backoff/backoff ending/expiration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel” or “sending the 802.11 frame on the first channel in response to the backoff count ending” as taught by Seok in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer in order to increase the use efficiency of radio resources (see page 1, paragraph 7, lines 7-8 of Seok).
Regarding Claim 13, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses the first node as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel” or “causing the main transceiver of the first node send the 802.11 frame on the first channel in response to the backoff count ending”.
However, Seok discloses the first node comprising:
reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel (see Figure 13 and paragraph 164; reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel/upon expiration of a backoff timer, an STA (e.g., STA1) may transmit an RTS PPDU to the AP according to an Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) protocol); and
causing the main transceiver of the first node send the 802.11 frame on the first channel in response to the backoff count ending (see Figures 1 and 13 and paragraph 164; causing the main transceiver/(transmission signal processing unit 100 and reception signal processing unit 200) of the first node/(WLAN device 1) send/transmit the 802.11 frame/PPDU on the first channel/channel in response to the backoff/backoff ending/expiration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel” or “causing the main transceiver of the first node send the 802.11 frame on the first channel in response to the backoff count ending” as taught by Seok in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer in order to increase the use efficiency of radio resources (see page 1, paragraph 7, lines 7-8 of Seok).
Regarding Claim 19, Although the combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer discloses the apparatus as set forth above,
The combination of Hirsch and Shellhammer does not explicitly disclose “reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel” or “sending the 802.11 frame in response to the backoff count ending”.
However, Seok discloses the first node comprising:
reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel (see Figure 13 and paragraph 164; reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel/upon expiration of a backoff timer, an STA (e.g., STA1) may transmit an RTS PPDU to the AP according to an Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) protocol); and
sending the 802.11 frame in response to the backoff count ending (see Figures 1 and 13 and paragraph 164; sending/transmit the 802.11 frame/PPDU in response to the backoff/backoff ending/expiration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “reading the backoff count maintained on the first channel” or “sending the 802.11 frame in response to the backoff count ending” as taught by Seok in the combined system of Hirsch and Shellhammer in order to increase the use efficiency of radio resources (see page 1, paragraph 7, lines 7-8 of Seok).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 17-18 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.
Yang et al (US 2016/0212748 A1) discloses Data Transmission Method and Device. Specifically, see paragraphs 213-24.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATRESA A McCALLUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-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, IAN N MOORE can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/L.A.M/ Examiner, Art Unit 2469 /Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights