DETAILED ACTION
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 filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the first written description issue, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the PBT session is a structured procedure having a defined lifecycle including a PBT setup, a PBT session operation using RTS/CTS or modified CTS signaling and a PBT session termination. The applicant cites paragraph 4-6 and Figures 5, 6A, 6B, 8A, 8B, and 9 to support this explanation. The Examiner points out that none of these paragraphs or figures provide a description of what functionality a PBT setup comprises. None of these paragraphs or figures provide a description of what functionality a PBT session operation which uses RTS/CTS or modified CTS signaling comprises. None of these paragraphs or figures provide a description of what functionality a PBT session termination requires.
In the arguments the applicant used a sentence with the phrase “there is no requirement that the specification provide an explicit definition sentence or glossary entry for each claim term” bolded while not bolding the caveat to that phrase which states “, so long as the meaning of the term is clear from the disclosure as a whole”. The applicant’s choice of bolding in their argument shows that the applicant is missing the whole point of the written description rejection. The Examiner has shown that the term “probe before talk” does not have a specific meaning in the art and that the applicant has not otherwise provided a definition that meets the guidance given to the examiner in sections 2163.03(V) and 2161.01(I) of the MPEP because the applicant failed to describe a what a PBT session comprises, how it is setup up, and how such a setup is requested. According to section 2163.03(V) of the MPEP, “The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy the original description requirement”. In this case, the “requesting setup of a PBT session” covers mere indistinct words because this concept is not defined by the applicant in any technical manner or otherwise standardized or widely adopted, as conceded by the applicant.
The applicant concludes as follows:
The Office Action's assertion that the term "probe before talk" is not "commonly known or used" does not establish a written description deficiency. The written description requirement does not ask whether a term is standardized or widely adopted, but whether the application itself conveys possession of the concept. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Here, the specification not only names the PBT session, but explains how it is initiated, conducted, and terminated, and illustrates its operation in multiple figures.
The whole point of the rejection is that the applicant did not convey possession of a concept of a PBT session or how setup of such a session is requested. The applicant’s conclusion is incorrect because the applicant did not convey how a PBT session is initiated, conducted, and terminated; instead, the applicant merely states that these actions happen without any explanation of how they are accomplished.
Section 2161.01(I) of the MPEP:
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
The applicant’s arguments about the Zhou reference illustrate the importance of this written description rejection. The applicant is arguing that Zhou does not disclose a “probe before talk session at al”. The applicant is arguing that this unexplained concept of requesting a probe before talk session represents patentable technology. The whole purpose of a patent is to provide the public with a disclosure of such technology.
Sections 2162 of the MPEP:
To obtain a valid patent, a patent application must contain a full and clear description of the invention for which a patent is sought in the manner prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The requirement for an adequate written description ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent. The grant of a patent helps to foster and enhance the development and disclosure of new ideas and the advancement of scientific knowledge. Upon the grant of a patent in the U.S., information contained in the patent becomes a part of the information available to the public for further research and development, subject only to the patentee’s right to exclude others during the life of the patent.
The applicant clearly has not provided any description of the concept of a PBT session or how one is requested that meets the guidance that the Examiner must follow in the MPEP for evaluating written description.
With respect to the written description rejection of claim 11, the applicant argues:
The Office Action further asserts that claim 11 lacks written description support because Applicant allegedly does not define a "buffer status report probe frame." This position again misapplies the written description requirement under MPEP § 2163 L.A and § 2163 II.A.3(a). As with the PBT session, the written description requirement does not mandate an express definitional statement. Rather, the question is whether the specification reasonably conveys possession of the claimed concept to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification describes, in the context of multi-user PBT operation, signaling sequences in which a probe frame is used to elicit buffer status information prior to data transmission. See, for example, the description associated with Figure 18, which illustrates an example of an eBSRP frame, and the surrounding discussion explaining its role in probing buffer status before scheduling subsequent transmissions.
Again, for the same reason, discussed with respect to the written description of claim 1, the applicant uses the claim terms in question but fails to technically describe these terms in such way that the “public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent” as required by section 2162 of the MPEP.
With respect to the 112b rejection of claims 2, 3, 22 and 23, the applicant argues:
Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 further limit their respective independent claims by specifying that the requesting of setup of the probe-before-talk (PBT) session occurs during, or in connection with, an association or re-association procedure. The Office Action asserts that these limitations lack a "structural cooperative relationship" with the independent claims. OA at p. 6. This position is incorrect. The independent claims recite requesting setup of a PBT session between devices. In IEEE 802.11-based systems, association and re-association procedures define the relationship between devices and provide the logical context in which management and control signaling such as PBT setup requests-may occur. Thus, the association-related limitations of claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 naturally and clearly narrow the scope of the independent claims by specifying the operational context in which the PBT setup request is performed.
This argument is not persuasive because the applicant’s arguments ignore the language of the claims themselves. Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 attempt to specify when “PBT setup” occurs with respect to “association or re-association”. The independent claims do not recite the concept of “PBT setup”. They recite “requesting setup of a PBT session” so it is not clear what the relationship between “PBT setup” and the limitations of the independent claim actually is. The independent claims do not define any step of “association or re-association” so any attempt to establish a time frame that can define when “PBT setup” occurs. The applicant is encouraged to positively claim the steps of “association or re-association” as limitations of the claimed process and also define the term “PBT setup” in the claim to give it meaning. The Examiner is not allowed to import claim limitations from the specification when examining (see section 2111.01(II) of the MPEP).
With respect to the 112b rejection of claims 6 and 26, the applicant argues:
Claims 6 and 26 further limit the independent claims by specifying behavior associated with a duration field of a CTS frame. The Office Action asserts that it is "not clear what the duration field of a CTS frame has to do with the independent claims." OA at p. 6. This assertion does not establish indefiniteness. The independent claims already recite transmitting a CTS frame or a modified CTS frame in response to a PBT setup request. Claims 6 and 26 merely specify a particular characteristic of that CTS frame, namely, behavior of its duration field. Such narrowing limitations are routine in dependent claims and do not render the claim scope unclear.
This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not establish a relationship between the CTS frame or modified CTS frame in the independent claims and the CTS frame referred to in claims 6 and 26. If the applicant is trying to explicitly refer to the transmitted CTS frame or modified CTS frame, then the claim language should be clear. Additionally, the claims are not clear about what entity is doing the interpreting. The applicant needs to write a coherent claim that defines the relationship between the duration field and the CTS or modified CTS in the independent claims and defines what entity is interpreting such a field as a PBT transmit opportunity duration in order to give this claim clear and coherent meaning.
With respect to the 112b rejection of claim 10, the applicant argues:
Claim 10 further limits claim 8 by specifying a PBT transmit opportunity duration associated with the claimed signaling. The Office Action asserts that claim 10 is indefinite because claim 8 does not expressly recite a PBT transmit opportunity duration. OA at p. 7. This reasoning is unpersuasive. Claim 8 recites signaling associated with a PBT session, including the use of CTS or modified CTS frames. Claim 10 merely adds an additional limitation specifying a characteristic of the PBT session referenced in claim 8. A dependent claim is not required to restate every concept of the independent claim verbatim; it need only further limit the scope of that claim. When read in light of the specification, the scope of claim 10 is reasonably clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
This argument is not persuasive. First, if the applicant wants to claim that a PBT session has a transmit opportunity duration, they should explicitly do so. Second, claim 8 does not cover any specific PBT session, it only covers a request to setup a PBT session.
With respect to the 112b rejection of claims 7, 9, and 12, the applicant argues:
The independent claims from which claims 7, 9, and 12 depend expressly recite transmitting "one of a CTS frame or a modified CTS frame." Thus, the term "modified CTS frame" is introduced in the independent claims, and the dependent claims merely refer back to that previously introduced element. The fact that the independent claim presents the CTS frame and the modified CTS frame as alternatives does not deprive the term "modified CTS frame" of antecedent basis. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that claims 7, 9, and 12 apply in the scenario in which the modified CTS frame is selected. Accordingly, the claims inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of their scope with reasonable certainty. To the extent the Examiner maintains a preference for explicit antecedent phrasing, Applicant respectfully notes that such a concern would, at most, be a matter of form rather than indefiniteness.
This argument is not persuasive because it ignores what happens when the independent claims are read to cover the CTS frame. In such a case claims 7, 9, and 12 do not modify the independent claim and are incoherent. The dependent claims must be clear for the entire scope of the independent claims.
With respect to the 112d rejection of claims 2, 3, 22 and 23, the applicant argues:
Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 each depend from an independent claim and further limit that claim by specifying that the requesting of setup of a probe-before-talk (PBT) session occurs during, or in connection with, an association or re-association procedure. These claims plainly satisfy the requirements of section 112(d). The independent claims recite requesting setup of a PBT session between devices. Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 narrow that subject matter by specifying when and in what procedural context the request is made. Such temporal and procedural limitations are classic examples of proper dependent-claim narrowing. The Office Action does not identify any inconsistency between these dependent claims and the independent claims, nor does it explain how the added limitations fail to further restrict the scope of the independent claims. Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 are proper dependent claims under section 112(d).
This argument is not persuasive because the independent claims do not recite “association or re-association” or a “PBT setup”. Such concepts cannot be narrowed if they are not recited.
With respect to the 112d rejection of claim 10, the applicant argues:
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and further limits it by specifying a probe-before-talk transmit opportunity duration associated with the claimed signaling. The Office Action asserts that claim 10 is improperly dependent because claim 8 does not expressly recite a PBT transmit opportunity duration. OA at p. 8. This reasoning is unpersuasive under section 112(d). Claim 8 recites signaling associated with a PBT session, including CTS or modified CTS frames. Claim 10 narrows that subject matter by specifying a particular characteristic of the PBT session. A dependent claim is not required to restate every concept of the independent claim verbatim; it need only further limit the scope of that claim. Accordingly, claim 10 satisfies the requirements of section 112(d).
This argument is not persuasive because claim 8 does not recite a “PBT opportunity duration”. If the applicant wants to amend claim 8 to include a PBT opportunity duration then the 112d rejection of claim 10 will be dropped.
With respect to the prior art rejection of the independent claims, the applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited reference fails to disclose all of the elements of claim 1. In particular, the cited reference fails to disclose at least "requesting setup of a PBT session." Zhou does not disclose a step of requesting setup of a PBT session as a distinct operation. Rather, Zhou describes request-to-send (RTS) and clear-to-send (CTS) signaling as mechanisms for channel access and transmit opportunity coordination. In Zhou, RTS/CTS signaling itself is used to initiate and govern access to the channel. Zhou does not disclose any signaling or control exchange that establishes a probe-before-talk session as a session construct separate from the RTS/CTS exchange.
Moreover, Zhou does not disclose a probe before talk session at all. As explained in Applicant's specification, a PBT session is a structured construct having defined boundaries, including session setup, controlled signaling during the session, and session termination. Zhou does not describe any session abstraction corresponding to a PBT session, nor does it describe requesting setup of such a session. The mere disclosure of RTS/CTS signaling in Zhou does not disclose, nor render inherent, the claimed PBT session or its setup.
Because Zhou fails to disclose requesting setup of a PBT session, Zhou does not disclose all elements of claim 1, and therefore does not anticipate claim 1 under section 102.
Independent claims 8 and 21 each recite elements directed to a probe-before-talk session in a manner similar to claim 1. For at least the same reasons discussed above, Zhou likewise fails to disclose all elements of claims 8 and 21, and therefore does not anticipate those claims.
This argument is not persuasive. The applicant does not disclose the concept of a PBT session in any limiting manner or how the setup of such a session is requested. Col. 18, lines 33-48 describes how the stations received configuration information such as an TXOP duration threshold that is used by the station to request the setup of a session by “starting TXOP”. The stations send and receive RTS frames and CTS frames subsequently. The Examiner notes that the applicant’s claims do not define any specific relationship between the limitations themselves and the applicant does not provide a limiting definition of the concept of a PBT session. The Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with the guidance given in section 2111 of the MPEP. For example, paragraph 95 references what the PBT mechanism “may” include but the word “may” is not limiting. If the applicant wants to further prosecution, they should define how the request for the setup of a the PBT session is related to the other limitations in each independent claim and further define the PBT session as much as possible with the original disclosure.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 2, 3, 22 and 23, the applicant argues:
With respect to claims 2, 3, 22, and 23, the Office Action cites Zhou at column 18, lines 33-48, and asserts that because Applicant allegedly does not define the term "association," the claimed act "could include the signal itself or any prior step." This reasoning does not establish anticipation. Anticipation requires that a reference affirmatively disclose the claimed element, not that the element could be hypothetically interpreted to encompass disclosed behavior. Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 each require that requesting setup of a probe-before-talk session occurs during or in connection with an association or re-association procedure. Zhou does not disclose requesting setup of a PBT session during association or re-association, nor does it disclose embedding PBT- session setup semantics into association procedures. Accordingly, Zhou does not anticipate claims 2,3, 22, or 23.
This argument is not persuasive because the applicant is ignoring the breadth of the claims which does not define the concept of an association/re-association or PBT setup in any coherent manner.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 4-6, 10, 13, 14, and 24-26, the applicant argues:
With respect to claims 4-6, 10, 13, 14, and 24-26, the Office Action cites Zhou at column 18, lines 33-48, generally referencing a threshold. This conclusory citation does not establish anticipation. Each of these claims recites a specific additional element relating to PBT signaling, CTS or modified CTS frame behavior, transmit opportunity duration, or threshold-related operation within a PBT session. The Office Action does not explain how the cited portion of Zhou discloses the particular elements recited in these claims. Accordingly, Zhou does not anticipate claims 4-6, 10, 13, 14, or 24-26.
This argument is not persuasive because the CTS messages sent in response to the RTS messages read on the “information associated with PBT setup” that includes an “information element” and the message itself is an “indication of enablement”. Again, the applicant’s claims are extremely broad and lack precision. In order to further prosecution, the applicant is encouraged to write precise and coherent claims that specifically define the technology the applicant invented so the Examiner has something clear to search for and either find or not find.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 7 and 12, the applicant argues:
With respect to claims 7 and 12, the Office Action cites Zhou at column 10, lines 3-35. While Zhou may disclose CTS signaling generally, the Office Action does not identify any disclosure of a modified CTS frame having the PBT-related semantics recited in claims 7 and 12. Accordingly, Zhou does not anticipate claims 7 or 12.
This argument is persuasive. Although the cited portion of Zhou teaches the concept of power saving, it does not suggest the indication that the transmitter of the modified CTS will be in a power save mode at the end of a PBT transmit opportunity duration and onwards. The rejection is withdrawn but the claims are not indicated as allowable because they are still rejected based on 35 USC section 112a and 112b.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claim 9, the applicant argues:
With respect to claim 9, the Office Action asserts that Zhou's disclosure of hidden nodes "represents multiple links." This assertion is conclusory and unsupported. A hidden-node condition describes a spatial interference scenario, not a multi-link architecture or multi-link operation as recited in claim 9. The Office Action does not explain how Zhou's discussion of hidden nodes discloses the specific multi-link element of claim 9. Accordingly, Zhou does not anticipate claim 9.
This argument is persuasive. After reviewing the claim, the Examiner agrees that Zhou does not suggest a future unavailability field being expanded to support multiple links. The rejection is withdrawn but the claims are not indicated as allowable because they are still rejected based on 35 USC section 112a and 112b.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are 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(s) 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.
Section 2163.03(V) (Original Claim Not Sufficiently Described) of the MPEP states the following:
The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Written Description Issue #1
Claim 1 features the following limitations:
requesting setup of a PBT session;
Claim 8 features the following limitations:
request setup of a probe before talk (PBT) session;
Claim 21 features the following limitations:
request setup of a probe before talk (PBT) session;
The applicant does not define a probe before talk session. Paragraphs 4-6, 94, 95, 115, and 121 reference the term “PBT session” but they fail to provide any definition of the term. The phrase “probe before talk” is not commonly known or used in the art. A search using the PTO’s search tools shows only two references to “probe before talk” in subsequently filed applications by the applicant (US 2025/0016830 and US 2024/0357651). The applicant’s disclosure has not provided a description of what is meant by a “probe before talk” session.
The claimed process is described with respect to the processes shown in Figures 20 and 21 described from paragraphs 114-124. In both the processes, the applicant describes how a setup request for a PBT session is received by a transmit opportunity initiator (paragraphs 115 and 121), but then the applicant does not again reference the PBT session again with respect to the description of either process in the paragraphs subsequent to paragraphs 115 and 121.
The applicant introduces “Probe Before Talk” beginning in paragraph 93 of their disclosure. Paragraph 95 states that a PBT mechanism may include three stages of setup, session, and termination. Paragraph 96 states that Figures 6A and 6B illustrate examples of PBT session setup. Paragraph 97 states that, as shown in Figure 6A, PBT setup may be included as part of an association and/or re-association procedure and paragraph 98 states that, as shown in Figure 6B, PBT setup may be transmitted after association/re-association. The applicant does not define concept of “association/re-association”. Paragraphs 95-98, 115, and 121 reference the term but they do not define what is meant by “association/re-association”. Figures 6A and 6B show “association” as a conceptual box which could include the PBT setup and subsequent response or could be a separate concept that happens before. There is no explanation in the disclosure of how the response shown in Figures 6A and 6B is related to the process claimed, as paragraphs 115 and 121 which describe the claimed process do not reference the response 604 or 614 in any manner. There is a lack of coherence between how the PBT setup is described and how the claimed process is described.
Paragraph 99 and Figure 7 shows the format of a PBT setup. The setup could include indications of enablement, PBT usage threshold, and frame types for PBT. Enablement indication is whether to enable PBT. These indications are all defined with respect to PBT but, as of paragraph 99 in the disclosure, PBT is not defined. Paragraph 99 presents an incoherent circular logic which attempts to describe PBT with respect to the concept of PBT which is not defined. The applicant references transmit opportunity durations and frame types for PBT but since PBT is not defined it is not clear what the opportunity durations and frame types relate to. Additionally, there is no description of how any of these concepts define a PBT session.
Paragraphs 100-113 describe what happens after PBT setup. There is no description of any of the steps described in paragraphs 100-113 as defining the PBT session. Paragraph 100 references “the PBT agreement and/or configuration” being confirmed during setup but the disclosure does not define such an agreement or configuration. Paragraph 102 also references but does not define the PBT agreement or how such a concept may be related to a PBT session. Paragraphs 102-113 reference a relationship between a modified CTS at a transmit opportunity responder and a PBT transmit opportunity duration but there is no description of how these concepts relate to a PBT session.
Because the applicant did not describe the claimed PBT session in such a way that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed, the claims are rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement.
Written Description Issue #2
Claim 11 features the following limitations:
receive a buffer status report probe (BSRP) frame;
transmit one of a BSR frame or a modified CTS frame;
receive one or more of a trigger frame, a block acknowledgment frame, or a quality of service (QoS) information frame; and
transmit one or more of a block acknowledgement frame or a QoS data frame.
The applicant does not define the term “buffer status report probe frame” nor is the term known in the art. Paragraphs 112, 119, and 126 use the term but they do not define it. The applicant does not define a “trigger frame”, “block acknowledgement frame”, QOS information frame, or QOS data frame. The specification uses the terms in paragraphs 106, 112, 119, but fails to define them. Because of the lack of definition regarding the claim terms in the process of claim 11, the applicant has not defined the claimed process in such a way that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed.
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 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 22, 23, and 26 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.
Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: There is no relationship between the “association or re-association with the transmit opportunity initiator” and the subject matter of the independent claims so it is not clear how the “wherein” clause is related to the subject matter of the independent claims.
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: it is not clear what the duration field of a CTS frame has to do with the independent claims. The applicant does not appear to be referring to the CTS field referenced in the independent claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the modified CTS frame". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “modified CTS frame” is an optional limitation in claim 1 and therefore there is not antecedent basis when claim 1 is read as not covering the modified CTS frame.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: it is not clear what the “PBT transmit opportunity duration” in the wherein clause has to do with the limitations of claim 8 which does not reference such a concept.
Claims 9 and 12 recite the limitation "the modified CTS frame". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “modified CTS frame” is an optional limitation in claim 8 and therefore there is not antecedent basis when claim 8 is read as not covering the modified CTS frame.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to claims 2 and 3, claim 1 does not reference any “association or re-association with the transmit opportunity” so the “wherein” clause of claims 2 and 3 does not limit the subject matter of claim 1.
As to claim 10, claim 8 does not reference “a PBT transmit opportunity duration” so the “wherein” clause of claim 10 does not limit the subject matter of claim 8.
As to claims 22 and 23, claim 21 does not reference any “association or re-association with the transmit opportunity” so the “wherein” clause of claims 22 and 23 does not limit the subject matter of claim 21.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 10,264,606 to Zhou et al.
As to claim 1, Zhou teaches a method, comprising: requesting setup of a PBT session (col. 18, lines 33-37, the indicated TXOP duration threshold received from the AP by the STA is used by the STA to request to setup a PBT session according to the threshold. The applicant provides no limiting definition of the claimed request); receiving a request-to-send (RTS) frame from a transmit opportunity initiator (col. 18, lines 37-48, the stations send RTS frames to each other); transmitting one of a clear-to-send (CTS) frame or a modified CTS frame to the transmit opportunity initiator (col. 10, lines 36-46, the stations send CTS frames to each other); and receiving data from the transmit opportunity initiator (col. 9, lines 23-38).
As to claims 8 and 21, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claims 2, 3, 22, and 23, see col. 18, lines 33-48, the applicant does not define the term “association” so the act of could include the signal itself or any prior step.
As to claims 4-6, 10, 13, 14, and 24-26, see col. 18, lines 33-48 for threshold.
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454