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
Claims 51-57 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 26, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
In the context of patent claims, "at least one of A and B" generally means "at least one of A and at least one of B," requiring the presence of at least one of each element, not just one or the other. Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 PTAB Mar. 22, 2017 and SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP § 2111.01 for more information on the plain meaning of claim language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses,
(D) contingent limitations,
(E) printed matter, or
(F) terms with associated functional language.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (footnote omitted). Claim limitations directed to the content of information are not entitled to patentable weight unless that information has a "functional relationship" to its substrate. As a general proposition, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to non-functional descriptive material absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.05 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). In Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888 (BPAI 2008) (precedential), the Board held that the nature of the information being manipulated by the computer should not be given patentable weight absent evidence that the information is functionally related to the process “by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic” of the steps. See also Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (non-precedential) (holding “wellness-related” data stored in a database and communicated over a network was non-functional descriptive material as claimed because the data “does not functionally change” the system).
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 58-67 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 claims 58, 64, 66, one of the options, because of the conjunction “or”, is the multi-link configuration may comprise one first address, but it contains one of a multi-link device address associated with the first WLAN termination node and a plurality of addresses each associated with a single link to the first WLAN termination node, which are more, not one, first addresses. Hence, the claim is confusing. The same problem is also with claims 59, 65, 67. The claim language “one or more first addresses comprises one of: a multi-link device address ...; and one or more single link addresses ...” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the multi-link configuration may comprise only a single device address, only a plurality of single link addresses, or both. The use of “or” does not specify whether these alternatives are mutually exclusive or may coexist. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claimed invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and as interpreted by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014). This ambiguity is further reflected in dependent claims 59-63, 65, and 67, which rely on the unclear antecedent basis, compounding the indefiniteness. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to clarify the relationship between the alternatives, specify whether both types of addresses can be present, and provide clear antecedent basis to resolve the ambiguity.
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) 64 and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0335454 (Huang, et al).
Huang, et al discloses a base station (figure 6) for configuring a multi-link WLAN connection between a wireless device (figure 5, #504) and a first WLAN termination node(#504, ¶33, Abstract, claim 1). The base station (#600) comprising processing circuitry (#602) configured cause the base station (#600) to transmit, to the wireless device (#504), a multi-link configuration comprising first addresses, wherein the first addresses comprise one of a multi-link device address associated with the first WLAN termination node (#504) and a plurality of addresses each associated with a single link to the first WLAN termination node (#504, ¶94, 105, 109, 141, etc.).
Regarding first addresses, wherein the first addresses comprise one of a multi-link device address associated with the first WLAN termination node (#504) and a plurality of addresses each associated with a single link to the first WLAN termination node, this limitation is also non-functional descriptive material and just data structure. Note paragraphs 6 and 7 above.
Huang, et al reveals responsive to the first addresses comprising a multi-link device address associated with the first WLAN termination node, the multi-link configuration comprises a mode associated with the wireless device (#504).
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 58-63, 66, and 67 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
CN 2018-529243 discloses in an LTE network, the base station and the UE may span the dedicated frequency spectrum of the cellular network or across different frequency bands of the radio frequency spectrum (e.g., dedicated radio frequency bands). radio frequency band) and shared radio frequency band). As data traffic in cellular networks using dedicated (e.g., licensed) radio frequency bands increase, offloading at least some data traffic to the shared radio frequency spectrum may result in extended data transmission to cellular operators. May provide an opportunity for capacity. The shared radio frequency spectrum may also provide service in areas where access to a dedicated radio frequency spectrum is not available. Wi-Fi networks may utilize certain frequency bands, such as the 2.4 or 5 GHz band in the shared spectrum (e.g., unlicensed spectrum). LTE networks can also utilize these frequency bands, and in some cases, use the 5 GHz band for communication, but not the 2.4 GHz band.
United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0221545 shows, the multi-link AP device may encode the RNR element to indicate whether the APs are part of the multi-link AP device. In some embodiments, the multi-link AP device may encode each of the per-AP sub-elements to indicate whether inheritance of information in the per-AP sub-elements is to be used in the multi-link discovery. In some embodiments, the multi-link AP device may encode the per-AP sub-elements to include one or more enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameters. In some embodiments, the multi-link AP device may encode the common information to include a medium access control (MAC) service access point (SAP) address of the multi-link AP device. In some embodiments, the multi-link AP device may encode the common information to include information related to shared buffer capabilities of the APs of the multi-link AP device.
WO 2021/004382 teaches a multi-link communication method and related device. The method comprising a first station sending, on a first link, a radio frame to a second station. The first station is one of multiple stations included in a first multi-link device. The multiple stations included in the first multi-link device respectively work on multiple links, and the multiple links comprise the first link on which the first station works. The radio frame comprises at least two management frames, the at least two management frames are generated by at least two stations, working on different links, in the first multi-link device and the second station is one of multiple stations included in a second multi-link device.
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious offload traffic from a connection to the base station to the at least one link with the first WLAN termination node. In combination with, in a wireless device for configuring a multi-link Wireless Local Area Network, WLAN, connection between the wireless device and a first WLAN termination node. The wireless device comprising processing circuitry configured to cause the wireless device to receive, from a base station, a multi-link configuration comprising first addresses, wherein the one or more first addresses comprises one of a multi-link device address associated with the first WLAN termination node and one or more single link addresses each associated with a single link to the first WLAN termination node for each of the one or more first addresses. Establish at least one link with the first WLAN termination node utilizing the first address.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights