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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon addressing the double patenting rejection noted in this Office Action, claims 8, 10, and 18 would be 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to the claim(s), the prior art of record fails to disclose singly or in combination or render obvious the conditional pausing of the backoff counter as disclosed in claims 8 and 18, or data type specific backoff counters as disclosed in claim 10.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 20, respectively, of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12101827 B1. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
Claims 1-8, 10-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12101827 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim(s) 1 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim(s) 1 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 2 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2.
Claim 3 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 3.
Claim 4 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 4.
Claim 5 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5.
Claim 6 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6.
Claim 7 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7.
Claim 8 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8.
Claim 10 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 9.
Claim(s) 11 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim(s) 11 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 12 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 12.
Claim 13 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13.
Claim 14 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 14.
Claim 15 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 15.
Claim 16 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 16.
Claim 17 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 17.
Claim 18 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 18.
Claim 19 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 19.
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) 1-7, 11-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0300903 A1 to Kim et al. in view of US 2017/0188336 A1 to Ahn et al.
Re: Claim(s) 1, 11
Kim discloses a backoff counting method in a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) operation mode implemented in a first communication device (Para 23 and 165 teaches of NSTR link pair),
the first communication device being configured with a plurality of links for communicating with a second communication device, the method comprising: configuring a plurality of backoff counters for counting backoff slots with no medium activity of channels of the plurality of links (Para 13-16, Para 25-28, Para 153-153 and Para 181-187 teaches of plurality of backoff counters),
and transmitting or receiving a signal on a channel of at least one of the plurality of links after all the backoff counters reach a predefined value (See fig 12 Para 167-169).
Kim does/do not appear to explicitly disclose a backoff counting method, synchronizing a count value of a first backoff counter of the plurality of backoff counters with a count value of a second backoff counter of the plurality of backoff counters, if the first backoff counter starts counting later than the second backoff counter or resumes counting after a pause, wherein the count value of the second backoff counter is smaller than that of the first backoff counter.
However Ahn et al. discloses a backoff counting method, synchronizing a count value of a first backoff counter of the plurality of backoff counters with a count value of a second backoff counter of the plurality of backoff counters, if the first backoff counter starts counting later than the second backoff counter or resumes counting after a pause, wherein the count value of the second backoff counter is smaller than that of the first backoff counter
However, attention is directed to Ahn which discloses said limitation (Para 23 and 132 teaches of synchronizing the backoff timers by setting the second backoff time equal to first backoff timer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim invention by employing the teaching as taught by Ahn to use the method of synchronizing the backoff timers of Ahn et al. with the system of Kim et al. in order to provide a system for a high-efficiency/high-performance wireless LAN communication in a high-density environment. The motivation for the combination is given by Ahn (0005-0006).
Kim further discloses a communication device comprising a circuit and transceiver (Fig. 4 – 200 comprises 210 and 220) as required by claim 11.
Re: Claim(s) 2, 12
Kim in view of Ahn discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Kim further discloses wherein the plurality of the links are operated in any one of 2.4Ghz, 5 Ghz and 6 Ghz frequency bands (Para 133).
Re: Claim(s) 3, 13
Kim in view of Ahn discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Kim does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein synchronizing the count value of the first backoff counter with the count value of the second backoff counter comprises setting the count value of the first backoff counter equal to the count value of the second backoff counter.
However, further attention is directed to Ahn which discloses said limitation (Para 23 and 132 teaches of synchronizing the backoff timers by setting the second backoff time equal to first backoff timer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim invention by employing the teaching as taught by Ahn to use the method of synchronizing the backoff timers of Ahn et al. with the system of Kim et al. in order to provide a system for a high-efficiency/high-performance wireless LAN communication in a high-density environment. The motivation for the combination is given by Ahn (0005-0006).
Re: Claim(s) 4, 14
Kim in view of Ahn discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Kim does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second-backoff counter is a backoff counter with the smallest count value among the plurality of backoff counters, or wherein the second backoff counter is a backoff counter with the smallest count .value among backoff counters associated with a subset of the plurality of the links, and wherein the links of the subset are established by a first chip through which a first link associated with the first backoff counter is established.
However, further attention is directed to Ahn which discloses said limitation (Para 125 teaches of the second backoff counter is smaller than the first).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim invention by employing the teaching as taught by Ahn to use the method of synchronizing the backoff timers of Ahn et al. with the system of Kim et al. in order to provide a system for a high-efficiency/high-performance wireless LAN communication in a high-density environment. The motivation for the combination is given by Ahn (0005-0006).
Re: Claim(s) 5, 15
Kim in view of Ahn discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Kim does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein initial count values of the plurality of backoff counters are the same in a case that the plurality of backoff counters start counting simultaneously.
However, further attention is directed to Ahn which discloses said limitation (Para 23 and 132 teaches of synchronizing the backoff timers by setting the second backoff time equal to first backoff timer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim invention by employing the teaching as taught by Ahn to use the method of synchronizing the backoff timers of Ahn et al. with the system of Kim et al. in order to provide a system for a high-efficiency/high-performance wireless LAN communication in a high-density environment. The motivation for the combination is given by Ahn (0005-0006).
Re: Claim(s) 6, 16
Kim in view of Ahn discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Kim further discloses wherein the plurality of links are configured with a same waiting time from a timing at which the link completes a last transmission or reception until they start counting (Para 228 teaches of turnaround time to be 4 microseconds.)
Re: Claim(s) 7, 17
Kim in view of Ahn discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Kim further discloses wherein the count value of the second backoff counter reaches and remains at zero, and a second link associated with the second backoff counter occupies a transmission opportunity (TXOP), and wherein transmitting or receiving the signal comprises transmitting or receiving the signal in the TXOP (Para 138-143).
Re: Claim(s) 19
Kim in view of Ahn discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Kim further discloses a communication device, wherein the first communication device is an access point (AP) and the second communication device is a station (STA), wherein the first communication device is the STA and the second communication device is the AP, wherein the first communication device is the AP and the second communication device is the AP or wherein the first communication device is the STA and the second communication device is the STA (See Fig 12) .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 EST.
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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415