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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim language “child station/parent station” is not well supported in the specification and not the relationship is not well defined. Examiner does not understand what is meant by the language, the role assumed by each station or the relationship between the stations if any.
The claim language “specific processing for operating the communication apparatus in the first mode is performed while the communication apparatus is operating in the second mode” is vague and not clear as the relationship between the first mode and second mode is not known. Examiner does not understand the problem solved that makes such operation important to the invention.
The claim language “agreement” is vague and indefinite as the claim language does explain how such agreement is achieved, the purpose if serves, or the problem it solves.
The claim language “in a case” is mentioned twice in the claim. It is not clear if the cases depend on one another or the second mentioning is referral to the first mentioning. Examiner suggest correcting the claim language for clarification.
The claim language “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” is not clear. It is not clear what the states refer to.
Similar issues occur in claim 19-20.
The dependent claims 2-18 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “stop an operation in the second mode” seem to contradict with claim 1, where the first mode and second mode are concurrently maintained.
Note: examiner would like to indicate that the claims are vague and indefinite making it difficult to find an appropriate art to evaluate and compare. However; for the sake of expedited prosecution, examiner is indicating the following rejection as on the most pertinent arts to the teaching of the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (US 2021/0136847).
Regarding claims 1, and 19-20, Nakajima discloses a 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, the communication apparatus comprising: a specification unit configured to, 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 as a channel to be used by the communication apparatus in the second mode after the specific processing is performed, based on an agreement between a channel used by the communication apparatus in the second mode during the specific processing and a channel to be used by the communication apparatus in the first mode to be started by the specific processing (see at least figure 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 (see at least figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
