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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/18/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered. Independent Claims 13, 21, and 22 have been amended. Dependent claims 14, 15, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 13-22 have been withdrawn. Claims 23 and 24 are new and have been entered. Claim 23 has been withdrawn from consideration due to its dependency on a withdrawn claim. Claim 24 is still pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of a device in a communication mode with communication modes with multiple frequency bands being connected to a base station, and checking against a condition, and using one band over another, in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims refer to the same technical concept with different details regarding the implementation. This is not found persuasive because of the following reason:
Claims 13-22 are drawn to a device that requests information to generate a communication system across two links to adjust the current communication system to a different system across the two links, and then the device can re-iterate swapping of system, as the device is classified in H04W 88/06 (CPC).
Claims 1-12, and now 24 are drawn to a device that has a mode selection between two modes, the first mode where the communication between two bands occurs irrespective of the other band, and a second mode of simultaneous communication, as the device is classified in H04L 5/0041 (CPC).
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
In the instant case, the combination as claimed in each invention does not require the particulars of the subcombinations from other inventions as explained below:
Regarding Invention I, it is related to a device that requests information to generate a communication system across two links to adjust the current communication system to a different system across the two links, and then the device can re-iterate swapping of system. None of the concepts from Invention II are being used in the invention I to achieve the resource configuration as the Invention II is related to a device that has a mode selection between two modes, the first mode where the communication between two bands occurs irrespective of the other band, and a second mode of simultaneous communication.
Regarding Invention II, it is related to a device that has a mode selection between two modes, the first mode where the communication between two bands occurs irrespective of the other band, and a second mode of simultaneous communication. None of the concepts from Invention I are being used in the invention II to achieve a device that requests information to generate a communication system across two links to adjust the current communication system to a different system across the two links, and then the device can re-iterate swapping of system.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these 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(a) of the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/11/2026 on page 5 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim 24 under 35 USC § 103. The applicant argues that Beninghaus fails to teach different communication modes being performed independently across bands. However, as mentioned in the rejection, ¶0112 of Beninghaus teaches that there can be a plurality of channels, i.e. bands, that ¶0113 further describe that the device can select a sets of channels, and that the traffic type can contain asynchronous traffic. Meaning that there are a plurality of active band channels, that are being listened to, with asynchronous traffic across those bands. Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention of different communication modes being performed independently across bands from the teachings of Beninghaus. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/11/2026 on page 5 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim 24 under 35 USC § 103. The applicant argues that Ukita fails to teach communicating with another device using the determined frequency bands after changing the communication mode. However, as referenced in the mapping, Fig. 9: S58 describes “change setting values to communication scheme B”, which is further described in ¶0074 as setting the receiver’s values such as bit-rate, center frequency, ect., that correspond to the communication scheme. Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention of communicating with another device using the determined frequency bands after changing the communication mode from the teachings of Ukita. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beninghaus (Pub. No.: US 20090258607 A1, hereafter “Beninghaus”) in view of Ukita (Pub. No.: US 20150131464 A1, hereafter “Ukita”).
Regarding Claim 24
Beninghaus teaches a Device comprising
A communication device (Beninghaus Fig. 5: 102) compliant with an IEEE 802.11 series standard (Beninghaus ¶0040: 102 module is can communicate with IEEE 802.11 WiFi links), the communication device comprising: a communication unit (Beninghaus Fig. 5: 116) configured to communicate in a communication mode among a first mode (Beninghaus ¶0104: WLAN channel 1), in which transmission and reception (Beninghaus Fig. 5: 150) are performed independently over each of frequency bands (Beninghaus ¶0111: harmonics do not overlap), and a second mode (Beninghaus ¶0104: Bluetooth channels 1-20), in which transmission or reception is performed simultaneously over each of the frequency bands (Beninghaus ¶0112: overlapping communication channels; Beninghaus teaches a WiFi device that can communicate in two different modes, one where the frequencies do not overlap, and one that they do);
Beninghaus does not explicitly teach
a judgment unit configured to judge whether a predetermined condition pertaining to changing the communication mode is satisfied; and a determination unit configured to determine, in a case where the judgment unit judges that the predetermined condition is satisfied, at least one frequency band to be used for communication in the communication mode after the changing, wherein in a case where the judgment unit judges that the predetermined condition is satisfied while the communication unit is communicating with a first other communication device using each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands in the first mode or the second mode, the determination unit determines, based on the plurality of frequency bands, a plurality of frequency bands for performing communication in the communication mode after the changing, and the communication unit communicates with the first other communication device in the communication mode after the changing using the plurality of frequency bands determined.
However, Ukita teaches
a judgment unit (Ukita Fig. 5: 18) configured to judge (Ukita Fig. 9: S72) whether a predetermined condition (Ukita Fig. 9: S72, e.g. RSSI) pertaining to changing the communication mode (Ukita Fig. 9: S56 and S58) is satisfied (Ukita Fig. 9: S59; Ukita teaches a judging unit determining a given threshold/value relating to communication schemes); and a determination unit configured to determine (Ukita Fig. 9: S73), in a case where the judgment unit judges that the predetermined condition is satisfied (Ukita Fig. 9: Yes branch of S74), at least one frequency band to be used for communication in the communication mode after the changing (Ukita Fig. 9: S56), wherein in a case where the judgment unit (Ukita Fig. 5: 18) judges that the predetermined condition is satisfied (Ukita Fig. 9: S74) while the communication unit is communicating with a first other communication device (Ukita Fig. 1: 2a/2b) using each frequency band of a plurality of frequency bands in the first mode (Ukita Fig. 3: 5a) or the second mode (Ukita Fig. 3: 6b), the determination unit determines, based on the plurality of frequency bands (Ukita Fig. 9: S75/S77), a plurality of frequency bands for performing communication in the communication mode after the changing (Ukita Fig. 9: S76/S78), and the communication unit communicates with the first other communication device in the communication mode after the changing using the plurality of frequency bands determined (Ukita Fig. 9: S58/S56; Ukita teaches a judgement unit determining, based off of a given value, judging the value based on a threshold, then selecting a communication scheme from distinct communication schemes, and finally changing the settings to the selected scheme).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beninghaus by way of Ukita to include a judgement unit determining, based off of a given value, judging the value based on a threshold, then selecting a communication scheme from distinct communication schemes, and finally changing the settings to the selected scheme, as taught by Ukita in Fig. 3, Fig. 5, and Fig. 9, to reduce manufacturing costs of a wireless communication device by including a plurality of communication schemes and allow for the possibility of backwards compatibility with a lower investment cost.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415