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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
The indicated allowability of claims is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0364492 as submitted by Applicant on October 30, 2025. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claims 16-25 are allowed.
Claims 4, 8, 9, 10, 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP § 2111.01 for more information on the plain meaning of claim language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses,
(D) contingent limitations,
(E) printed matter, or
(F) terms with associated functional language.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (footnote omitted). Claim limitations directed to the content of information are not entitled to patentable weight unless that information has a "functional relationship" to its substrate. As a general proposition, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to non-functional descriptive material absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.05 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). In Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888 (BPAI 2008) (precedential), the Board held that the nature of the information being manipulated by the computer should not be given patentable weight absent evidence that the information is functionally related to the process “by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic” of the steps. See also Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (non-precedential) (holding “wellness-related” data stored in a database and communicated over a network was non-functional descriptive material as claimed because the data “does not functionally change” the system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0364492 (Azizi, et al).
Azizi, et al discloses an apparatus comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause an Access Point (AP) (figures 12, 113, 230, ¶1964-1965) to generate an information element comprising licensed-channel information corresponding to a licensed sub 10 Gigahertz (GHz) (sub-10GHz) wireless communication channel, which is restricted to private access (¶289, 2315, 2319, 2332, 2336, etc.). The licensed-channel information configured to indicate a central frequency of the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel, and to indicate a bandwidth of the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel (¶2315-2319, 2332, 2336, etc.) Transmitting a frame over an unlicensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel, which is not restricted to the private access, the unlicensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel different from the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel, the frame comprising the information element comprising the licensed-channel information (figures 2, 7, #210, 214-230, #710-730, ¶349, 401, 2315-2319, 2332, 2336).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 15, ¶310, figure 2 shows the AP comprises a first AP of a plurality of APs of an AP Multi-Link Device (MLD), wherein the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel comprises a wireless communication channel utilized by a second AP of the plurality of APs of the AP MLD.
PNG
media_image2.png
395
421
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, ¶355-358 shows causing the second AP to communicate another frame between the second AP and a non-AP STA over the licensed sub- 10GHz wireless communication channel according to the central frequency and the bandwidth of the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel.
PNG
media_image3.png
281
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, ¶326-329, figure 3 shows configured to cause the AP to configure indicate the bandwidth of the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel based on an integer multiple of a basic channel frequency.
PNG
media_image4.png
324
272
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, ¶578. 678, 3011, shows the basic channel frequency is 5 Megahertz (MHz), 10MHz, 20MHz, or 100MHz. This claim is not a patentable limitation since it limits basic channel frequency, not the apparatus or its functions.
PNG
media_image5.png
385
403
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, #1202, ¶289, 401 shows at least one radio to transmit the frame over the unlicensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is the inherent product version of the above apparatus claim since the claim is claiming the same functions, hence, the claim is rejected for the reasons stated above. Note ¶230, ¶1964-1965.
Regarding claim 13, note #1202, antenna, #1208 processor.
Regarding claim 11, ¶289 shows cause the AP to transmit the frame over the unlicensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel having an unlicensed channel in a 2.4GHz wireless communication frequency band, or an unlicensed channel in a 5GHz wireless communication frequency band.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0364492 (Azizi, et al) in view of EP 2943041 (Kyocera Corporation).
Azizi, et al disclose all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for causing the AP to configure licensed-channel information to indicate one or more transmit power limitations for transmission over the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel. Also note ¶401.
Kyocera Corporation teaches the use of causing the AP to configure licensed-channel information to indicate one or more transmit power limitations for transmission over the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel for the purpose of the base station (for example, eNB 200-1) transmits, to the user terminal (for example, UE 100-1), related information including at least one item of information of a radio resource and information of transmission power used when the discovery-use signal is transmitted, and the user terminal transmits the discovery-use signal corresponding to the related information, note ¶82. Hence, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the use of causing the AP to configure licensed-channel information to indicate one or more transmit power limitations for transmission over the licensed sub-10GHz wireless communication channel for the purpose of the base station (for example, eNB 200-1) transmits, to the user terminal (for example, UE 100-1), related information including at least one item of information of a radio resource and information of transmission power used when the discovery-use signal is transmitted, and the user terminal transmits the discovery-use signal corresponding to the related information, as taught by Kyocera Corporation, in the apparatus of Azizi, et al in order to the base station transmits, to the user terminal, related information including at least one item of information of a radio resource and information of transmission power used when the discovery-use signal is transmitted, when the user terminal executed a handover to the neighbor cell.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645