DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 6 January 2026, having claims 1-8.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 6 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Oliveira et al. (US 2010/0128724 A1) (reference cited in previous Office Action).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 4, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The comma (,) located after the word “attach” in lines 12-13 of claim 1 must be deleted to conform with English punctuation rules.
The comma (,) located after the word “attach” in lines 12-13 of claim 1 must be deleted to conform with English punctuation rules.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “perform to set up” in line 2. The words “perform to” must be deleted from the claim because it is not necessary to understand the claim limitation.
The word “is” recited after the limitation “original data” in line 12 of claim 7 must be deleted because it is not necessary to understand the claim.
The word “is” recited after the limitation “first data” in line 13 of claim 7 must be deleted because it is not necessary to understand the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claim 6 is 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 claim contains 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “absolute delay conditions” in lines 2-3. The word “absolute” is a term of degree. The specification does not adequately define what “delay condition(s)” would qualify as “absolute.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably assess a value to the term “absolute.”
6. 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 1-8 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 the limitation “a wireless signal” in line 5. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because the same limitation is recited in line 3 of the claim. Therefore, it is not clear whether the second recitation refers to the same or a different wireless signal. The limitation “a second wireless signal” is an acceptable alternative.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “output the first data” in line 15 and the limitation “output the second data” in line 16. The word “output” renders the limitations vague and indefinite. The word “output” implies that the data is merely being displayed rather than transmitted. Thus, it is suggested that the word “output” is replaced with the word “transmit” to conform with the limitation “transmit a wireless signal” recited in the lines 3 and 5 of the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “corresponding data” in lines 2-4. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear whether this “corresponding data” refers to the “first data” or “second data.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a multi-link” and “the multi-link” in lines 3 and 5. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear what element does “multi-link” refer to. Is it a “multi-link device” or “multi-link” connection?
Claim 6 recites the limitation “absolute delay conditions” in lines 2-3. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “absolute” is a term of degree. One of ordinary skilled in the art cannot objectively assess a quantity or level with the term “absolute” from reading the claim. Thus, the exact meaning of an “absolute” delay condition remains obscure.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a wireless signal” in line 5. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because the same limitation is recited in line 3 of the claim. Therefore, it is not clear whether the second recitation refers to the same or a different wireless signal. The limitation “a second wireless signal” is an acceptable alternative.
The second half of claim 7 which recites limitation “when first identification…the second data” in lines 10-16 does not have a connection with the first half of claim 7 which recites the limitation “a first wireless signal processing circuit…a second wireless signal processing circuit…” in lines 3-6. The two halves of claim 7 reads like 2 different claims because there is no language that ties the final steps with the recited “circuits” and “channels” This lack of connection renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oliveira et al. (US 2010/0128724 A1).
For claim 1, Oliveira discloses a transmitting station (Fig 2, station 200) that transmits wireless signals, the station comprising:
a first wireless signal processing circuit (Fig 2, communication interface 102) configured to transmit a wireless signal using a first channel (Fig 2, link 104);
a second wireless signal processing circuit (Fig 2, communication interface 108) configured to transmit a wireless signal using a second channel (Fig 2, link 110) different from the first channel;
a processor (Fig 2, tone control logic 106); and
a storage medium (Fig 2, memory 202) having computer program instructions stored therein that, when executed by the processor, perform to:
generate, when first data input is of a specific type ([0025] audio signal), second data that is a duplicate of the first data ([0025] a duplicate of the audio signal is generated and transmitted via interface 108);
attach, first identification information (timestamp and sequence number) indicating that the first data is original data, to the first data and attach, second identification information (timestamp and sequence number) indicating that the second data is replicated data, to the second data ([0029] and [0032] the sequence number of a packet received via first interface is compared with the sequence number of a packet received via a second interface to determine whether the second packet is a duplicate packet of the first packet); and
output the first data with the first identification information attached to the first wireless signal processing circuit and output the second data with the second identification information attached to the second wireless signal processing circuit ([0026] copies of the same packet are transmitted via a different interface (interface 104 or 108)).
For claim 2, Oliveira discloses the first identification information indicates that corresponding data is not retransmitted data, and the second identification information indicates that corresponding data is retransmitted data ([0029] and [0032] the sequence number of a packet received via first interface is compared with the sequence number of a packet received via a second interface to determine whether the second packet is a duplicate packet of the first packet).
For claim 3, Oliveira discloses the first data and the second data are associated with a same sequence number ([0029] and [0032] the sequence number of a packet received via first interface is compared with the sequence number of a packet received via a second interface to determine whether the second packet is a duplicate packet of the first packet).
For claim 4, Oliveira discloses the computer program instructions, when executed, perform to set up a primary link using the first wireless signal processing circuit as a main link in a multi-link, and set up a secondary link using the second wireless signal processing circuit as an auxiliary link in the multi-link ([0031] multiple radio interfaces are coupled to communication link 110 which makes the link a multi-link; [0026] each communication interface may be used to transmit or receive an original packet or a duplicate packet based on timestamp and sequence number information).
For claim 5, Oliveira discloses a type of the first data is identified based on a traffic type of the data ([0025] the audio signal is the specific type; audio signals are real-time data that are delay-sensitive).
For claim 6, Oliveira discloses the specific type of data includes data corresponding to real-time traffic having absolute delay conditions ([0025] the audio signal is the specific type; audio signals are real-time data that are delay-sensitive).
For claim 7, Oliveira discloses a receiving station (Fig 2, station 200) that receives wireless signals, the station comprising:
a first wireless signal processing circuit (Fig 2, communication interface 102) configured to receive a wireless signal using a first channel (Fig 2, link 104);
a second wireless signal processing circuit (Fig 2, communication interface 108) configured to receive a wireless signal using a second channel (Fig 2, link 110) different from the first channel;
a processor (Fig 2, tone control logic 106); and
a storage medium (Fig 2, memory 202) having computer program instructions stored therein that, when executed by the processor, perform to:
first identification information indicating that first data is original data is attached to the first data and second identification information indicating that second data is replicated data of the first data is attached to the second data, select the first data and discard the second data ([0026] control logic 106 determines whether a data packet received on the first communication interface is a duplicate data packet of an already received data packet; if yes, then the duplicate packet (second data) is discarded).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira et al. (US 2010/0128724 A1) in view of Messenger (US 5,046,066).
For claim 8, Oliveira does not expressly disclose the computer program instructions, when executed, perform to, when the first data is not correctly received, select the second data and discard the first data.
Messenger, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches when the first data is not correctly received, select the second data and discard the first data (column 10, lines 51-68, a station stores original packets and duplicate packets in RAM buffer 80, wherein if a transmission error is detected in a packet (original or duplicate) that is intended for the station, the incorrectly received packet is discarded). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to discard the incorrectly received first data (i.e., original packet) in the communication network of Oliveira based on the teachings of Messenger at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471