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 .
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
Claim 1 “a radio communication unit configured to perform transmission and reception of a radio frame on a first radio link”
Claim 14 “a radio communication unit configured to perform transmission and reception of a radio frame on a first radio link”
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.
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.
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 5-9, and 12-13 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.
In reference to claim 5
Claim 5 recites the limitation "third control information" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim nor the parent claim recites a “second control information”. The Examiner recommends amending “third control information” to --second control information-- in claim 5 and similarly in dependent claim 6.
In reference to claim 7
Claim 7 recites the limitation "fourth control information" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim nor the parent claim recites a “second control information” or “third control information”. The Examiner recommends amending “fourth control information” to --second control information-- in claim 7 and similarly in dependent claim 8.
In reference to claim 9
Claim 9 recites the limitation "third timer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim nor the parent claim recites a “second timer”. The Examiner recommends amending “third timer” to --second timer--.
In reference to claim 12
Claim 12 recites the limitation "fifth control information" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim nor the parent claim recites a “fourth control information”. The Examiner recommends amending “fifth control information” to --fourth control information--.
In reference to claim 13
Claim 13 recites the limitation "fourth control information" in line 4 and “sixth control information” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim nor the parent claim recites a “third control information” or “fifth control information”. The Examiner recommends amending “fourth control information” and “sixth control information” to --third control information-- and --fourth control information--.
In reference to claim 6, 8
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected because they depend on a rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2010/0322166) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2014/0369341).
- In reference to claim 14
Sampath et al. teaches a radio communication apparatus (e.g. access point 110; Fig. 1, par. 0032-0033) for performing communication with a radio communication apparatus of a communication partner (e.g. user terminal 120; Fig. 1, par. 0032-0033) using a radio link, the radio communication apparatus comprising:
a radio communication unit (e.g. transceiver 314; Fig. 3 par. 0045) configured to perform transmission and reception of a radio frame on a first radio link (e.g. transmission and reception of radio frames on radio link between AP 110 and user terminal 120; par. 0033, 0052) and
a radio controller (e.g. processor 304; Fig 3, par. 0044) configured to generate control information, wherein the radio controller generates first control information including a configuration and reset criterion related to a first timer included in the radio communication apparatus of the communication partner (e.g. control information that includes MAC ID and backoff time such as 5 or 10 for a back off timer the STA/user terminal that may reset if another transmission is detected from another STA/user terminal; par. 0060) for a sounding frame (e.g. sounding frame from the STA/user terminal to the AP; par. 0060) from the radio communication apparatus of the communication partner, and the first radio communication unit transmits a radio frame including the first control information (e.g. access point transmits the a radio frame according to 802.11 to STA/user terminal including the control information; par. 0030-0031, 0060).
Sampath et al. does not teach the first control information including a transmission criterion.
Jeong et al. teaches a transmission criterion (e.g. permission or non-permission for change of transmission order of sounding reference radio frame; par. 0068-0069).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first control information of Sampath et al. to include a transmission criterion for a sounding frame from a radio communication apparatus of a communication partner as suggested by Jeong et al. because it would provide for the a radio communication apparatus to signal additional transmission criterion to the a radio communication apparatus of the communication partner for use by the radio communication apparatus of the communication partner with respect to a transmission order of sounding frames within a network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 10-11 and 15 are allowed.
Claims 5-9, and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 2023/0189223 pertains to a transmitter configured to: transmit a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame to the second wireless device configured to include an indication that the NDPA frame is a sensing NDPA frame; transmit a null data packet (NDP) frame to the second wireless device; a receiver configured to: receive a frame from the second wireless device indicating sensing information.
US 2024/0049356 pertains to determining, by a wireless transmitting device, whether an aggregation subfield of a signal field of the PPDU is to be set to 1 and responsive to determining that the aggregation subfield of the signal field of the PPDU is not to be set to 1, calculating, by the wireless transmitting device, the number of symbols in the data field of the PPDU based on a PHY service data unit (PSDU) length value, wherein the PSDU length value is provided in a transmission vector (TXVECTOR) and the TXVECTOR also includes an aggregated media access control (MAC) protocol data unit pre-end-of-frame padding (APEP) length value of the PPDU.
US 11612002 pertains to synchronous independent channel access in a wireless network. The synchronous independent channel access can be performed by a wireless station having multiple transceivers for simultaneous communication over multiple wireless bands. A wireless station can connect wirelessly to a wireless access point to access a first primary wireless band during a transmission opportunity, and can use early access on a second primary wireless band without receiving a transmission opportunity. The transmission and reception of data frames over the different primary channels are synchronized to prevent or mitigate inter-channel interference. According to some embodiments, the channels are synchronized using back-off procedures and/or padding to align the ending time of transmitted and received data frames
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466