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 Amendments and Arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification and Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/09/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification and Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the claim interpretation under 112(f), Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive at least for reasons as set forth below.
On page 7 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Applicant does not intend for the claims to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). This
is evident at least because the claims do not use "means for" language, as is acknowledged in the Office Action. If Applicant had intended for the claims to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), the claims would have been written using the "means for" language. Thus, there is a rebuttable presumption that the claims should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Accordingly, Applicant requests that Claims 8-9 and 13-14 not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and instead that these claims be given their broadest reasonable interpretation.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The absence of the word “means” does not preclude application of 112(f) claim interpretations, particularly where the claim recites functional language without sufficient structural support (Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC).
Here, the claimed “processing unit” is a generic term or nonce term that does not convey sufficiently definite structure. The limitation primarily recites functions (e.g., determining and enabling) without specifying how those functions are performed.
Accordingly, the examiner maintains that the limitation is properly interpretated under 35 U.S.C 112(f).
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/09/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “determining that STA . . .” (line 5). It is suggested to replace it with “determining that the STA . . . for more clarity. Claims 8 and 15 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 processing unit is operative to: determine device information …; determine that STA comprises …; and enable ...”, as recited in claim 8; “the processing unit being further operative to: receive ...” as recited in claim 9; “the processing unit being further operative to: monitor …; and disable … , or prioritize …” as recited in claim 13; and “the processing unit being further operative to: receive …” as recited including 14.
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.
Regarding the above-mentioned limitations regarding “the processing unit”, it appears that the following are corresponding structures described in the specification: see, “computing device 300” or “hand-held devices”, “multiprocessor systems”, “microprocessor-based or programmable sender electronic devices”, “microcomputers”, “mainframe computers” in ¶0039 of the specification or “an electrical circuit comprising discrete electronic elements, packaged or integrated electronic chips containing logic gates, a circuit utilizing a microprocessor, or on a single chip containing electronic elements or microprocessors in ¶0043 with reference to FIG. 3.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a sub 6 Gigahertz (GHz)” (line 3). The term “sub Gigahertz” is indefinite because it lacks a clear and definite boundary. The prefix “sub” denotes a relative boundary (e.g., less than 6 GHz) but fails to specify a lower limit or a precise frequency range. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether this term refers to any frequency below 6 GHz (including DC) or specific commercial frequency band. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected at least based on a similar rational applied to claim 1. For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claims, as set forth 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (WO 2019/005038 A1) in view of Lanante et al (US Publication No. 2025/0317912 A1)1.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses, a method comprising:
determining device information of a Station (STA) [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; page 22, lines 25-30, each of devices (i.e., STA) exchanges its information for beamforming in the 60 GHz; further see page 22, line 28, the information including time and channel information; page 5, lines 12-22, the 60 GHz-only service information including 60 GHz-only indication, a service ID, a MAC address, and committed NAN availability]; and
enabling the STA to communicate the traffic on a 60 GHz band on a second link based on the device information [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; page 22, line 30 - page 23, line 3, each device/STA negotiates a schedule for the data path which will use the 60 GHz or the Wi-Fi channel depending on the results on the beamforming stage which is performed based on the information; further see page 24, lines 1-5, “The 60 GHz cores in the device can use any of this information in the discovery process to expedite the beamforming methods of the 60 GHz band].
Huang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), wherein the STA is communication with an Access Point (AP) using a first link, wherein the first link is a sub 6 Gigahertz (GHz) link; determining that STA comprises traffic that can be sent on another link; and enabling the STA to communicate the traffic on a 60 GHz Gigahertz (GHz) band on a second link with the AP.
However, Lanante discloses, wherein the STA is communicating with an Access Point (AP) using a first link [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0085, in example 900, STA MLD 904 may transmit, via STA 904-1, a cross-link RTS (XRTS) frame 906 on the 5 GHz (i.e., first link) link to AP MLD 902 to reserve the 60 GHz link for a data transmission], wherein the first link is a sub 6 Gigahertz (GHz) link [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0085, 5 GHz]; determining that STA comprises traffic that can be sent on another link [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0086, on receiving XCTS frame 908 via STA 904-1 on the 5 GHz link, STA MLD 904 may wait for a SIFS before starting to transmit a data frame 910 (i.e., traffic) on the 60 GHz link via STA 904-2; which is considered as the STA MLD 904 is required to determine that it has data frame 910 that can be sent on 60 GHz link]; and enabling the STA to communicate the traffic on a 60 GHz Gigahertz (GHz) band on a second link with the AP [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0086, the STA MLD 904 transmits the data frame 910 on the 60 GHz link to the AP MLD 902] (see also e.g., pages 13-14 of US Provisional App. No. 63/434,128).
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Huang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Lanante to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Lanante into the system of Huang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to offload of high-data traffic and improve overall network efficiency , such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Huang in view of Lanante discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Huang discloses, receiving a request from the STA to use the 60 GHz band for at least a portion of transmissions by the STA [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; page 22, lines 25-30, each of devices (i.e., STA) exchanges its information for beamforming in the 60 GHz; further see page 22, line 28, the information including time and channel information; page 5, lines 12-22, the 60 GHz-only service information including 60 GHz-only indication, a service ID, a MAC address, and committed NAN availability; note that since the exchanged information/60 GHz only service information is used to enable other device to use the 60 GHz band for transmission, the exchanged information itself is considered as a request], wherein determining the device information is in response to the request [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; page 22, lines 25-30; page 22, line 28; page 5, lines 12-22, note that since the exchanged information is considered as a request, information element(s) of the exchanged information are determined in response to the exchanged information itself].
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Lanante discloses, the method of claim 2 as set forth above.
Huang discloses, wherein the request includes the device information [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; page 22, lines 25-30; page 22, line 28; page 5, lines 12-22, note that since the exchanged information is considered as a request, the exchanged information/request includes the exchanged information itself].
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses, a system [FIGS. 5-6 and 10; their related descriptions; page 22, lines 25-30, each of devices] comprising:
a memory storage [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; pages 18-19, memory 1048, note that every network system has at least one memory]; and
a processing unit coupled to the memory storage [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; pages 18-19, controller/microprocessor 1056, note that every network system has at least one processor coupled to the memory], wherein the processing unit is operative to [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; pages 18-19, controller/microprocessor 1056, note that every network system has at least one processor coupled to the memory].
Since claim 8 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 8 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, claims 10 and 17 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Huang discloses, a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; pages 18-19, memory 1048, note that every network system has at least one memory storing program codes to perform action(s)].
Since claim 15 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claims 4-7, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (WO 2019/005038 A1) in view of Lanante et al (US Publication No. 2025/0317912 A1) and further in view of Chaudhary et al (US Publication No. 2021/0282127 A1)2.
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Lanante discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Huang in view of Lanante does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chaudhary discloses, wherein the device information comprises any one of: (i) a battery level [¶0005, 0025 and 0031, battery level], (ii) a heat level [¶0031, thermal management], (iii) a bandwidth requirement of an upcoming communication [¶0005, a level of bandwidth in current use or expected for future use].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Chaudhary in the system of Huang in view of Lanante in order to cause the system to be able to determine when best to enable access to 5G cellular connections based on a variety of factors, thus improving user experience [e.g., ¶0003-0004 of Chaudhary].
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Lanante and Chaudhary discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Although Huang discloses, “enabling the STA to communicate on the 60 GHz band based on the device information” as set forth above, Huang in view of Lanante does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chaudhary discloses, wherein enabling the STA to communicate on the . . . band based on the device information comprises any one of:
(iii) determining the bandwidth requirement is above a bandwidth threshold [¶0044, the mobile wireless device 102 disables one or more of a first fifth generation (5G) radio frequency band (FR1) and a second 5G radio frequency band (FR2) when any one or more of the following conditions hold: iv) each application using or requesting use of cellular resources requires bandwidth below a bandwidth threshold; note that it is implicit that determining to use 5G FR1 and FR2 based on the bandwidth above the bandwidth threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Chaudhary in the system of Huang in view of Lanante for similar rationales set forth above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Lanante and Chaudhary discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Although Huang discloses, monitoring the device information [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; page 22, lines 25-30, each of devices (i.e., STA) exchanges its information for beamforming in the 60 GHz], Huang in view of Lanante does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations) but Chaudhary discloses, monitoring the device information [¶0042, monitor one or more flow criteria; and further see ¶0044, iv) each application using or requesting use of cellular resources requires bandwidth below a bandwidth threshold; which requires monitoring the bandwidth requirement]; and when any one of (iii) the bandwidth requirement moves below a bandwidth threshold [¶0044, when each application using or requesting use of cellular resources requires bandwidth below a bandwidth threshold], disabling the STA from communicating on the . . . band [¶0044, the mobile wireless device 102 disables one or more of a first fifth generation (5G) radio frequency band (FR1) and a second 5G radio frequency band (FR2) when any one or more of the following conditions hold: iv) each application using or requesting use of cellular resources requires bandwidth below a bandwidth threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Chaudhary in the system of Huang in view of Lanante for similar rationales set forth above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Lanante discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Huang in view of Lanante does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chaudhary discloses, receiving a request to cease . . . band operation from the STA [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0034 and 0036, (communication subsystem 506) receives 5G cellular recommendation 516 from the application subsystem 502 to disable FR1/FR2]; and
disabling the STA from communicating on the . . . band [¶0036 and 0044, disables the communication subsystem/mobile device from communicating on the FR1/FR2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Chaudhary in the system of Huang in view of Lanante for similar rationales set forth above in claim 4.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, claims 11 and 18 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, claims 12 and 19 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, claims 13 and 20 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
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 SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Lanante claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/434,128 filed on 12/21/2022, thus Lanante is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 05/13/2023.
2 Chaudhary was cited in an IDS.
Prosecution Insights