DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claim(s) 1, 7, 10, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended; No Claims have been canceled; No Claim(s) have been added. Claim(s) 1-20 are subject to examination.
Acknowledgement is made to the applicant’s amendment to 1, 7, 17, and 19-20 to obviate the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 1-20. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 1-20 is/are hereby withdrawn.
Acknowledgement is made to the applicant’s amendment to the title to obviate the previous objection to the specification. The previous objection to the specification is/are hereby withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
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 1-3 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18320113 in view of SONG et al. (US 20210289578 A1), hereby referred to as SONG.
Claim 2, depending on claim 1, of the copending application discloses claim 1-3, and 19-20 except language underlined and bolded. See Table below.
Instant Applicant #18320021
Copending application #18320113
Claim 1:
A communication apparatus configured to perform an operation in a first mode and a second mode, wherein the communication apparatus operates as a child station according to a predetermined wireless communication standard in the first mode, and the communication apparatus operates as a parent station according to the predetermined wireless communication standard in the second mode,
the communication apparatus comprising: a control unit configured to perform control in such a manner that (i) a state in which a predetermined wireless connection between the communication apparatus operating in the first mode and an access point is performed and (ii) a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, are concurrently maintained;
and a stop unit configured to stop the communication apparatus from operating in the second mode based on a channel used by the access point being changed when (i) the state in which the predetermined wireless connection is performed and (ii) the state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, are concurrently maintained,
wherein the communication apparatus turns into a state which does not transmit or receive signals in the second mode by stopping the operation in the second mode.
Claim 1:
A communication apparatus configured to perform an operation in a first mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a child station in a predetermined wireless communication standard, and an operation in a second mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a parent station in the predetermined wireless communication standard,
Claim 1:
and a control unit configured to, in a case where the specific processing is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, perform control in such a manner that a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the first mode and a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode that uses the specified channel are concurrently maintained.
Claim 1:
in a case where specific processing for operating the communication apparatus in the first mode is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, specify a channel different from the channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode when the specific processing is performed
Claim 2:
a stop unit configured to, in a case where the specific processing is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, stop an operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus;
Claim 2:
The communication apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a restart unit configured to restart an operation in the second mode to be performed by the communication apparatus, after the operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus is stopped.
Claim 2:
and a restart unit configured to restart an operation in the second mode to be performed by the communication apparatus, after the operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus is stopped,
Claim 3:
The communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a channel different from a channel used in the predetermined wireless connection after the channel used by the access point is changed is specified as a channel to be used by the communication apparatus in the restarted second mode.
Claim 2:
wherein a channel different from the channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode during the specific processing is specified as a channel to be used by the communication apparatus in the restarted second mode.
Claim 19:
A control method for a communication apparatus configured to perform an operation in a first mode and a second mode, wherein the communication apparatus operates as a child station according to a predetermined wireless communication standard in the first mode, and the communication apparatus operates as a parent station according to the predetermined wireless communication standard in the second mode,
the control method comprising: performing control in such a manner that (i) a state in which a predetermined wireless connection between the communication apparatus operating in the first mode and an access point is performed and (ii) a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, are concurrently maintained;
and stopping the communication apparatus from operating in the second mode based on a channel used by the access point being changed when (i) the state in which the predetermined wireless connection is performed and (ii) the state in which the communication apparatus is operating are concurrently, maintained.
wherein the communication apparatus turns into a state which does not transmit or receive signals in the second mode by stopping the operation in the second mode.
Claim 1:
A communication apparatus configured to perform an operation in a first mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a child station in a predetermined wireless communication standard, and an operation in a second mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a parent station in the predetermined wireless communication standard,
Claim 1:
and a control unit configured to, in a case where the specific processing is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, perform control in such a manner that a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the first mode and a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode that uses the specified channel are concurrently maintained.
Claim 1:
in a case where specific processing for operating the communication apparatus in the first mode is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, specify a channel different from the channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode when the specific processing is performed
Claim 2:
a stop unit configured to, in a case where the specific processing is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, stop an operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus;
Claim 20:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform a control method for a communication apparatus configured to perform an operation in a first mode and a second mode, wherein the communication apparatus operates as a child station according to a predetermined wireless communication standard in the first mode, and an operation in a second mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a parent station according to the predetermined wireless communication standard in the second mode,
the control method comprising: performing control in such a manner that (i) a state in which a predetermined wireless connection between the communication apparatus operating in the first mode and an access point is performed and (ii) a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, are concurrently maintained;
and stopping the communication apparatus from operating in the second mode based on a channel used by the access point being changed when (i) the state in which the predetermined wireless connection is performed and (ii) the state in which the communication apparatus is operating, are concurrently maintained.
wherein the communication apparatus turns into a state which does not transmit or receive signals in the second mode by stopping the operation in the second mode.
Claim 1:
A communication apparatus configured to perform an operation in a first mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a child station in a predetermined wireless communication standard, and an operation in a second mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a parent station in the predetermined wireless communication standard,
Claim 1:
and a control unit configured to, in a case where the specific processing is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, perform control in such a manner that a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the first mode and a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode that uses the specified channel are concurrently maintained.
Claim 1:
in a case where specific processing for operating the communication apparatus in the first mode is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, specify a channel different from the channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode when the specific processing is performed
Claim 2:
a stop unit configured to, in a case where the specific processing is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, stop an operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus;
SONG, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the communication apparatus turns into a state which does not transmit or receive signals in the second mode by stopping the operation in the second mode (SONG: para 11 (“The Wi-FI chip…is in an absent status…such that the external device does not need to transmit data to the Wi-Fi chip…”) in absent status/state the apparatus does not receive or transmit in the second mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the copending application with SONG for the benefit of preventing connection loss (SONG: para 4).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit” in claim 1 and claim 10; “a stop unit” in claim 1 and claim 11; “restart unit” in claims 2, 8, and 11; “a specification unit” in claim 10; and “printing unit” and “scanning unit” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For clarity, claim 3 “wherein a channel different from a channel used in the predetermined wireless connection after the channel used by the access point is changed is specified as a channel to be used by the communication apparatus…” should be “wherein a second channel different from a first channel used in the predetermined wireless communication, after the channel used by the access point is changed, is specified as another channel used by the communication apparatus in the restarted second mode.”.
For clarity, Claim 7 “…a match between a channel being used in the predetermined wireless connection…and a channel being used by the second mode by the communication apparatus…between the channel being used in the predetermined wireless connection…and the channel being used in the second mode by the…” should be “…a match between a first channel being used in the predetermined wireless connection…and a second channel being used by the second mode by the communication apparatus…between the first channel being used in the predetermined wireless connection…and the second channel being used by the second mode by the…”.
For clarity, Claim 10 “specify a channel different from the channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode during the specific processing as a channel to be used by the communication apparatus in the second mode after the specific processing is performed…a channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode during the specific processing and a channel to be used…the specified channel…” should be “specify a second channel different from the channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode during the specific processing as a specified channel to be used by the communication apparatus in the second mode after the specific processing is performed…between a first channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode during the specific processing and [[a]] another channel to be used…the specified channel…” .
For clarity, claim 11 “wherein a channel different from the channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode during the specific processing is specified as a channel to be used by the communication apparatus…” should be “wherein a first channel different from the channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode during the specific processing is specified as a specified channel to be used by the communication apparatus…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13, 15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SONG et al. (US 20210289578 A1), hereby referred to as SONG.
Claim 1:
SONG teaches a communication apparatus configured to perform an operation in a first mode and a second mode, wherein the communication apparatus operates as a child station according to a predetermined wireless communication standard in the first mode, and the communication apparatus operates as a parent station according to the predetermined wireless communication standard in the second mode (Song: FIG. 2 item (“R3”) the apparatus and para 7 (“…the Wi-Fi chip works simultaneously in the STA mode and the AP mode.”) operating in a child/STA mode and a parent/AP mode in the wireless communication standard: Wi-Fi), the communication apparatus comprising: a control unit configured to perform control in such a manner that (i) a state in which a predetermined wireless connection between the communication apparatus operating in the first mode and an access point is performed and (ii) a state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, are concurrently maintained (SONG: FIG. 2 item (“R3”) the apparatus and para 7 (“…the Wi-Fi chip works simultaneously in the STA mode and the AP mode.”) operating in a child/STA mode and a parent/AP mode at the same time/simultaneously); and a stop unit configured to stop the communication apparatus from operating in the second mode based on a channel used by the access point being changed when (i) the state in which the predetermined wireless connection is maintained performed and (ii) the state in which the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode, are concurrently maintained (SONG: para 6 (“…when the Wi-Fi chip in the STA mode needs to switch from a first signal channel to a second signal channel, the Wi-Fi chip in the AP mode sends a control message to an external device…indicate that the Wi-Fi chip is in an absent status…”) wherein the communication apparatus’ processor stops operation in the second mode, via changing to an absent mode and sending a control message to stop transmissions, based on channel with AP being changed during concurrency); wherein the communication apparatus turns into a state which does not transmit or receive signals in the second mode by stopping the operation in the second mode (SONG: para 11 (“The Wi-FI chip…is in an absent status…such that the external device does not need to transmit data to the Wi-Fi chip…”) in absent status/state the apparatus does not receive or transmit in the second mode).
Claim 2:
SONG teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a restart unit configured to restart an operation in the second mode to be performed by the communication apparatus, after the operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus is stopped (SONG: para 6 (“…thus enabling the external device to stop transmitting data to the Wi-Fi chip within the preset period of time based on the control message; within the preset period of time, switching the Wi-Fi chip in both the STA mode and the AP mode to work in the second signal channel; and when the preset period of time ends, switching the Wi-Fi chip in the STA mode and the AP mode back to work in the first signal channel.”) wherein the wifi chip has a restart unit that beings second mode on the first signal channel again after it had been stopped).
Claim 13:
SONG teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second mode is a mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a software access point (SONG: FIG. 2 item (“Signal Channel 1”) action as a software access point).
Claim 15:
SONG teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined wireless communication standard is an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 series communication standard (SONG: para 2 (“…the field of Wi-Fi technology…a Wi-Fi chip…”) wherein IEEE 802.11 is Wi-Fi).
Claim 19:
SONG teaches a control method. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 20:
SONG teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform a control method for a communication apparatus (SONG: para 55 (“…programs may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium…”)). For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
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) 4-6, 8-9, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG in view of MORIYA et al. (JP 2017208775 A) (see IDS 02/06/2026).
Claim 4:
SONG teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus is stopped based on the predetermined wireless connection being disconnected (SONG: para 6 (“…when the Wi-Fi chip in the STA mode needs to switch from a first signal channel to a second signal channel, the Wi-Fi chip in the AP mode sends a control message to an external device…indicate that the Wi-Fi chip is in an absent status…”) wherein the communication apparatus’ processor stops operation in the second mode, via changing to an absent mode and sending a control message to stop transmissions, based on channel with AP being changed/disconnected from current channel during concurrency).
However, SONG does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined wireless connection is disconnected based on based on the change of the channel used by the access point,
MORIYA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the predetermined wireless connection is disconnected based on based on the change of the channel used by the access point (MORIYA: pg 16 para 3 (“…after the connection between the MFP 300 and the access point 400 is disconnected, the channel used by the access point 400 is changed…to the q-th channel.”) and pg 16 para 6 (“After that…disconnects the P2P connection with the terminal device 200 in order to switch the channel used for the P2P connection…”) wherein disconnection happens after/based on the change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the disconnection based on a channel being changed on SONG with the disconnection based on a channel already changed of MORIYA, the combination hereby referred to as SONG-MORIYA, for the benefit of improving user convenience (MORIYA: Abstract).
Claim 5:
SONG-MORIYA teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising a processing unit configured to perform reconnection processing for reestablishing the predetermined wireless connection after the disconnection of the predetermined wireless connection (MORIYA: pg 16 para 3 (“…after the connection between the MFP 300 and the access point 400 is disconnected, the channel used by the access point 400 is changed…to the q-th channel.”) and pg 16 para 6 (“After that…disconnects the P2P connection with the terminal device 200 in order to switch the channel used for the P2P connection…”) wherein reconnection to the switched channel is after disconnection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SONG with MORIYA for the benefit of improving user convenience (MORIYA: Abstract).
Claim 6:
SONG-MORIYA teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus is stopped after the predetermined wireless connection is reestablished by the reconnection processing (SONG: FIG. 1 wherein if the process is performed again after reestablishment, the second mode stops for the same reason).
Claim 8:
SONG-MORIYA teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 6, further comprising a restart unit configured to restart an operation in the second mode to be performed by the communication apparatus (MORIYA: pg 16 para 3 (“…after the connection between the MFP 300 and the access point 400 is disconnected, the channel used by the access point 400 is changed…to the q-th channel.”) and pg 16 para 6 (“After that…disconnects the P2P connection with the terminal device 200 in order to switch the channel used for the P2P connection…”) wherein operation is restarted after stopping), after the predetermined wireless connection is reestablished by the reconnection processing and the operation in the second mode being performed by the communication apparatus is stopped (SONG: FIG. 1 wherein if the process is performed again after reestablishment, the second mode stops for the same reason).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SONG with MORIYA for the benefit of improving user convenience (MORIYA: Abstract).
Claim 9:
SONG-MORIYA teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the reconnection processing includes search processing configured to search for the access point via the predetermined wireless communication standard (MORIYA: pg 16 para 2 (“…performs AP search using the channel…”)), and wherein the predetermined wireless connection is reestablished using a channel used in discovery of the access point by the search processing (MORIYA: pg 16 para 5 (“Since the channel used by the access point 400 is the q-th channel…the access point 400 transmits a device response command…”) wherein reestablishment happens on the discovery channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SONG with MORIYA for the benefit of improving user convenience (MORIYA: Abstract).
Claim 14:
SONG teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second mode is a mode in which the communication apparatus operates as a group owner (SONG: FIG. 1), but does not explicitly disclose in a Wi-Fi Direct® standard.
MORIYA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in a Wi-Fi Direct® standard (MORIYA: para 4 para 4 (“…can perform communication sin a Wi-Fi Direct…”) wherein WiFi Direct standard is used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SONG with MORIYA for the benefit of improving user convenience (MORIYA: Abstract).
Claim 16:
SONG teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least one of a printing unit configured to perform printing or a scanning unit configured to perform scanning.
MORIYA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising at least one of a printing unit configured to perform printing or a scanning unit configured to perform scanning (MORIYA: pg 3 para 7 (“….a multi-function printer…”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SONG with MORIYA for the benefit of improving user convenience (MORIYA: Abstract) in a plurality of applications (MORIYA: pg 3 para 7).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG in view of KONJI et al. (US 20200252521 A1), hereby referred to as KONJI.
Claim 17:
SONG teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a 2.4-GHz frequency band and a 5-GHz frequency band are usable for communication in the first mode, and wherein the 2.4-GHz frequency band and a frequency bandwidth included in the 5-GHz frequency band, the frequency bandwidth not including a specific frequency band are usable for communication in the second mode.
KONJI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a 2.4-GHz frequency band and a 5-GHz frequency band are usable for communication in the first mode (KONJI: para 104 (“…infrastructure connection has been established using the 2.4 GHz frequency band…”) and para 119 (“…infrastructure connection using the 5-GHz frequency band is established…”) wherein infrastructure/first mode uses 2.4 and 5 GHz), and wherein the 2.4-GHz frequency band and a frequency bandwidth included in the 5-GHz frequency band, the frequency bandwidth not including a specific frequency band are usable for communication in the second mode (KONJI: para 79 (“…the communication apparatus 151 uses the 2.4-GHz frequency band for direct connection when operating in AP mode 1. However, the 5-GHz frequency band may be used.”) and para 119 (“…simultaneous operations may be controlled to not be performed in a state where an infrastructure connection using a DFS-applied frequency band in the 5-GHz frequency band is established…”) wherein only mode 2.4 GHz and non-DFS band 5G-GHz is used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SONG with KONJI, for the benefit of adaptable communication control (KONJI: para 3).
Claim 18:
SONG teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a 2.4-GHz frequency band and a 5-GHz frequency band are usable for communication in the first mode, and wherein the 2.4-GHz frequency band is usable in the second mode and the 5- GHz frequency band is unusable for communication in the second mode.
KONJI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a 2.4-GHz frequency band and a 5-GHz frequency band are usable for communication in the first mode (KONJI: para 104 (“…infrastructure connection has been established using the 2.4 GHz frequency band…”) and para 119 (“…infrastructure connection using the 5-GHz frequency band is established…”) wherein infrastructure/first mode uses a 2.4 GHz and a 5 GHz band including a non-DFS band), and wherein the 2.4-GHz frequency band is usable in the second mode and the 5- GHz frequency band is unusable for communication in the second mode (KONJI: para 79 (“…the communication apparatus 151 uses the 2.4-GHz frequency band for direct connection when operating in AP mode 1. However, the 5-GHz frequency band may be used.”) and para 119 (“…simultaneous operations may be controlled to not be performed in a state where an infrastructure connection using a DFS-applied frequency band in the 5-GHz frequency band is established…”) wherein only mode 2.4 GHz and non-DFS band 5G-GHz is used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SONG with KONJI, for the benefit of adaptable communication control (KONJI: para 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 10 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. Claim 11 and Claim 12 are objected for being dependent on claim 10.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416