DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 April 2025 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 16 have been amended. Claim 13 has been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 15 and 17 were previously withdrawn from further consideration as drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 are currently under examination in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite, and specifically relating to the protocols WPA2 and WPA3, Applicant cites to Ex parte McClary (page 10 of the present response). However, McClary has not been designated as either precedential or informative. It is noted that even though Applicant asserts that WPA2 and WPA3 are specific versions, it is noted that each of those protocols are subject to their own revisions and updates; for example, WPA3 is up to at least version 3.4. Therefore, without clear limitation to a particular version, the use of the protocol names still renders the claims indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(u).
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections set forth below.
Specification
The objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is NOT withdrawn, because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Independent Claims 1 and 16 have been amended to recite “one or more external devices in a communication range of the communication device”. There appears to be no mention in the specification of a communication range. Therefore, there is not clear antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further detail see below with reference to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) are moot in light of the cancellation of the claim. The rejection of Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement is NOT withdrawn because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below. The rejection of Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, for the reasons detailed above, and because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 16 have been amended to recite “one or more external devices in a communication range of the communication device”. However, there appears to be no mention in the specification of a communication range. Further, Applicant has not specifically pointed out where the amended claims are supported. See MPEP § 2163.04. Therefore, there is not clear written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “receive standard information indicating a communication standard supported by a respective external device” in lines 9-10. It is not clear if each external device has its own standard information. The claim further recites “the each” in lines 15 and 17. This is not in proper idiomatic English. The claim additionally recites “the communication device does not receive second standard information” in lines 15-16. The timeframe for when this is not received is not clear. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “the one of the one or more external devices” in line 3. This is grammatically ambiguous and unnecessarily verbose.
Claim 3 recites “the one of the one or more external devices” in line 3. This is grammatically ambiguous and unnecessarily verbose.
Claim 6 recites “the SSID received from the first subset of the plurality of external devices” in lines 10-11 and “the SSID received from the second subset of the plurality of external devices” in lines 11-12. It is not clear whether the same SSID is received for each of the devices in each subset. Further, it appears that a conjunction (e.g. “and” or “or”) is missing after the end of line 14.
Claim 7 recites the WPA3 and WPA2 standards. The particular protocols have numerous revisions and/or updates. Absent a generic description of the protocols or a limitation of the protocols to a specific version, the protocol name cannot be used to identify a particular material or product. See MPEP § 2173.05(u).
Claim 8 recites “WPA3 Transition Mode” and “WPA3 Only Mode”. These modes of a protocol are subject to various revisions and/or updates. Absent a generic description of the protocols or a limitation of the protocols to a specific version, the protocol name cannot be used to identify a particular material or product. See MPEP § 2173.05(u).
Claim 9 recites WPA2 and WPA3. Absent a generic description of the protocols or a limitation of the protocols to a specific version, the protocol name cannot be used to identify a particular material or product. See MPEP § 2173.05(u).
Claim 10 recites WPA3 and WPA2. Absent a generic description of the protocols or a limitation of the protocols to a specific version, the protocol name cannot be used to identify a particular material or product. See MPEP § 2173.05(u).
Claim 16 recites “receive standard information indicating a communication standard supported by a respective external device” in lines 11-12. It is not clear if each external device has its own standard information. The claim additionally recites “the communication device does not receive second standard information” in lines 18-19. The timeframe for when this is not received is not clear. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
Because the claims are rendered indefinite and not clearly supported due to the numerous issues as detailed above in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), it has not been possible to fully construe pending Claims 1-14 and 16 in order to analyze the claims for novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. It appears that the claims do not clearly require any particular elements and therefore the scope is unclear. As per MPEP § 2173.06 II, if there is uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). A search has been performed to the extent possible, and references that appear to be relevant are cited on the attached form PTOL-892.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuda, US Patent 9226334, discloses connecting based on compatible modes.
Nogawa, US Patent 10129922, discloses an apparatus that determines whether schemes of a particular access point are support to establish connections.
Aoki, US Patent 10362611, discloses a base station that switches modes based on what modes are supported.
Murakami, US Patent 10644795, discloses a method where access points are connected to based on the schemes they support.
Nishida, US Patent 12015979, discloses an apparatus that determines whether to switch communication standards based on supported standards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492