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 .
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.
Claim limitation “a signal processing unit ” (in lines 1, 3 and 5) has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In particular, the non-structural term “unit” is used, and preceded by the no structural modifier. The non-structural claim term “unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to.” The non-structural claim term “unit” is not subsequently modified by any structural language limitations. Therefore, despite not using “means for” language, the limitation is considered to have invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph and is treated accordingly. Generic terms such as “unit”, “module,” “means,” “element,” and “device,” typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure. Applicant’s usage of “unit” in the instant case is synonyms with “means.”
The corresponding structure can be found on FIG. 3 and pages 7-9 of originally filed Specification.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-7 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Verma et al (US 20200404549)
As to claims 1, 8 and 9 Varma discloses A base station, a method and a program, the base station comprising a radio signal processing unit (Varma 502 of Fig.5, ¶0091- 4th sentence- the modem 502 may further include digital signal processing (DSP) circuitry and ¶0095- 1st and last sentences) capable of using a first channel, a second channel, and a third channel (Varma ¶0132- AP1 may allocate, to each of the selected APs, a unique portion of a frequency bandwidth of the wireless medium for data transmissions during the TXOP 1105 obtained by the first AP. In some implementations, the unique portions of the frequency bandwidth allocated by AP1 may be one of 20 MHz channel, a 40 MHz channel, an 80 MHz channel, or a 160 MHz channel.), wherein the radio signal processing unit is configured to perform signaling with a second other base station using the second channel while performing signaling with a first other base station using the first channel when the radio signal processing unit acquires transmission rights of the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel- ‘transmission rights’ interpreted as ownership of the TXOP- Varma ¶0130-2nd sentence- AP1 may obtain the TXOP 1105 by contending with other wireless devices (such as AP2 and AP3) for access to a wireless medium associated with the frequency bandwidth…and thus AP1 wins access to the wireless medium and obtains (and becomes the owner of) the TXOP 1105.., and execute cooperative processing with at least one of the first other base station and the second other base station on the basis of a result of the signaling (Varma ¶0131-AP1 may select one or more other APs for participation in a coordinated access point transmission (CAP TX) session on a wireless medium).
As to claim 2 Varma discloses the base station according to claim 1, wherein the signaling further includes transmitting, by the base station, a first signal to the second other base station using the second channel while transmitting the first signal to the first other base station using the first channel (Varma Fig. 12, ¶0152- last sentence-the example operation for concurrent DL transmissions during the coordinated access point transmission session described with reference to FIG. 12 may include other numbers of participating APs.; ¶0153).
As to claim 3 Varma discloses the base station according to claim 2, wherein the signaling includes reserving, by the base station, transmission using the third channel while transmitting the first signal (Varma ¶0132- last sentence- AP1 allocates one unique 20 MHz channel to AP2, allocates another unique 20 MHz channel to AP3, and reserves a unique 40 MHz channel for itself).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6 and 7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERRICK V ROSE whose telephone number is (571)270-7460. The examiner can normally be reached 9am- 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, YEMANE MESFIN can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/DERRICK V ROSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462