DETAILED ACTION
Status of Case
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/27/2025.
Examiner Interview & Special Note
Examiner spoke with Applicant’s representative (Andrew Deschere) on 5/8/2026, who indicated that the Applicant’s intent is to discontinue prosecution of this case due to the filing of continuation case 19/544,077 (which, as of the date of this office action, has not been docketed to any examiner yet). The previous final rejection was withdrawn due to Applicant’s remarks but based on the conversation with Applicant’s representative, this action is being mailed out and Examiner expects this application to go abandoned because Applicant does not intend to respond to this office action due to pursuing the 19/544,077 application instead.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: new claims 17-23 are directed towards transmitting a first identifier for a first link and having a response frame include information relating to power for the first link, which is different than the claims as originally presented. Examiner notes that the new claims require different searches, would be classified in a different classification area, and would likely require different prior art than the claims as originally presented.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10, 13, and 16 each recite the limitation "…the first frame is transmitted [or received] before simultaneous use of the first link and the second link…” However, it is unclear what the “simultaneous use of the first link and the second link” exactly refers to. For example, it is unclear whether such simultaneous use of the first link and the second link is use by the transmitter, use by the receiver, use by the transmitter or the receiver, or something entirely different.
Clarification in the claims regarding exactly what entity (or entities) is doing the “use” would help to clarify this ambiguity.
However, as the claims are currently recited, the meaning is unclear (as explained above), and therefore render the claims indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 are allowed, subject to correction of the noted 112 rejections.
The closest prior art reference is Liou (USPAN 2019/0159100).
For example, see paragraph 541 in Liou, wherein disclosed is that the UE monitors (simultaneously) on the first control region via the first link and the second control region via the second link could mean the UE monitors at least downlink control information or downlink transmission in the same time domain resources as that of the first control region via the first link and the same time domain resources as that of the second control region via the second link. Alternatively, the UE monitors (simultaneously) on the first control region via the first link and the second control region via the second link could mean the UE monitors at least downlink control information or downlink transmission in the same frequency domain resources as that of the first control region via the first link and the same frequency domain resources as that of the second control region via the second link.
Furthermore, see paragraph 553 of Liou, wherein disclosed is that the network could transmit at least the downlink control information or downlink transmission (simultaneously) on the first control region via the first link and the second control region via the second link based on the indication. More specifically, the network could transmit at least the downlink control information or downlink transmission on the first control region via the second link or the second control region via the second link based on the indication. However, the network does not transmit the response in the first control region (via the first link) and the second control region (via the second link) based on the indication.
However, Liou does not specifically disclose a wireless communication apparatus configured to perform frame exchange using a first link and a second link, the wireless communication apparatus comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit, through the first link, a first frame including first control information associated with the first link and second control information associated with the second link; and a receiver configured to receive, through the first link, a second frame including third control information associated with the first link and fourth control information associated with the second link, wherein: the first frame is transmitted before simultaneous use of the first link and the second link, the second frame is received in response to the first frame, the first control information and the third control information include a first identifier indicating the first link, the second control information and the fourth control information include a second identifier indicating the second link, the third control information includes information regarding a first other wireless communication apparatus using the first link, and the fourth control information includes information regarding a second other wireless communication apparatus using the second link, as recited in the instant claims.
As such, the instant claims are allowed over the closest prior art reference of Liou.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamal Javaid whose telephone number is 571-270-5137 and email address is Jamal.Javaid@uspto.gov.
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, Charles Jiang, can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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).
/JAMAL JAVAID/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights