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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species II, claims 6-7, in the reply filed on 12-9-2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-2, 6-8, 15-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-10, 13 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,690,015. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application are broader and reads on scope of the above-mentioned patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 8, 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gurevitz 20190132154.
As to claim 1, Gurevitz discloses a method for wireless communications in a wireless local area network (WLAN) performed by a first WLAN device (see par. 0020), comprising:
alternating, during a listen mode, one or more components of the first WLAN device between a power-off state of the listen mode and a power-on state of the listen mode of the first WLAN device in accordance with a duty cycle [step 902-906; the receiver may include switching the one or more RF components from the off-state to the on-state after an off-state period.] (see par. 0289-0292); and
receiving, during the power-on state of the listen mode, preamble information of a packet from a second WLAN device [step 910; repeating switching the one or more RF components between the on-state and the off-state, for example, until the frame preamble is detected by the preamble detector] (see par. 0293).
As to claim 2, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein alternating the one or more components between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode includes: alternating, during the listen mode when the first WLAN device is monitoring a wireless channel for packets, the one or more components between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode (see par. 0085, 0289-0293).
As to claim 8, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more components of the first WLAN device include at least one of: a radio frequency (RF) front end; an analog-to-digital converter (ADC); or a baseband processing unit (see par. 0055, 0086).
As to claim 14, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring for a preamble of the packet while operating in the power-on state of the listen mode[,] using the preamble information in response to detecting the preamble information [controller 164 (FIG. 1) may be configured to trigger, cause, instruct and/or control receiver 116 (FIG. 1) to switch the one or more RF components 170 (FIG. 1) between the on-state and the off-state based on the detection criterion for preamble] (see par. 0085, 0289).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 20, they are the corresponding first wireless local area network device and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims of method claims 1-2. Therefore, claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above and fig. 1 for the processor, memory, etc.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevitz on view of Morelli 6236674.
As to claims 6-7, Gurevitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein alternating the one or more components of the first WLAN device between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode is performed (see par. 0289-0293). Gurevitz fails to disclose based at least in part on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) is greater than an RSSI threshold. In an analogous art, Morelli discloses wherein alternating the one or more components is performed when a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) is greater than a first RSSI threshold and less than a second RSSI threshold [below threshold level set by MAC and threshold level above greater than noise] (see col .12 lines 14-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide 'WLAN device between the power-off state of the listen mode and the power-on state of the listen mode is performed when an RSSI is greater than a first RSSI threshold and less than a second RSSI threshold' to effectively switch the mobile station between an active mode and a sleep mode in order to conserve power without substantially sacrificing data exchange rate, Morelli Col. 3, Il 35-40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647