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 .
The instant first office action is in response to communication filed on 03/08/2024.
Claims 1-11 are pending of which claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-10 are independent.
The IDS(s) submitted on 03/08/2024 and 08/15/2025 is relevant and being considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Multi-Link Device Association and Reassociation based on 802.11 Protocol”
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 6-7 and 10 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 claim 6, in line 5 the apparatus’ a first transmission unit transmits an Association Request frame and in lines 12-13 the apparatus’ reception unit is indicated to have received the transmitted Association Request frame while the claim clearly shows in lines 8-9 that the reception unit actually receives a response to the Association Request frame transmitted. It is not clear to the examiner how the earlier transmitted Association Request Frame by the apparatus is also received by the same apparatus. For the purposes of examining claim 6 the examiner is interpreting what is recited in lines 12-13 “a generation unit configured to generate, based on the reception of the Association Request frame by the reception unit, An Association Request frame…” to mean “a generation unit configured to generate, based on the reception of the response to the Association Request frame by the reception unit, a second Association Request frame…”
Dependent claim 7 is rejected having the same flaw as parent claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, in lines 4-5 a first transmission to transmit an Association Request frame is recited and in lines 11-12 it is indicated to have received the transmitted Association Request frame while the claim clearly shows in lines 7-8 that a response to the Association Request frame transmitted is received. It is not clear to the examiner how the earlier transmitted Association Request Frame is also transmitted and received in the same step. For the purposes of examining claim 10 the examiner is interpreting what is recited in lines 12-13 “generating, based on the reception of the Association Request frame, An Association Request frame…” to mean “generating, based on the reception of the response to the Association Request frame, a second Association Request frame…”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon et al (US 20210266931 A1, herein after referred to as Kwon).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses a communication apparatus (Fig. 1 AP-MLD in the multi-link communication system 100) configured to perform wireless communication compliant with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 series standards (See abstract and paragraph 23 and paragraph 41 on Fig.1 AP-MLD 102 and NON-AP MLD 104 being IEEE 802.11 compliant) and via a plurality of wireless communication links using a different frequency from each other (See Paragraph 47 indicating the MLD-AP 102 connecting with NON-AP MLD 104 via various links using different frequencies such as 2.4 GHZ, 5GHZ and 6GHZ), the communication apparatus (Fig. 1 AP-MLD in the multi-link communication system 100) comprising:
a reception unit (i.e. Fig. 6 input/output data 602 interface – Paragraph 90) configured to receive an Association Request frame including information indicating a plurality of links for which wireless communication link establishment is requested (See Paragraph 77 teaching the limitation in its entirety by explaining the AP-MLD102 receives Association Request message from NON-APMLD 104-1. “[0077] Now discussed is extending the above requirements to when a non-AP-MLD 104-1 intends to associate with an AP-MLD 102. To begin this association (i.e. setup) the non-AP-MLD 104-1 sends a first frame to the AP-MLD 102 requesting a multi-link association. The first frame includes information on the non-AP-MLD 104-1's multi-link capabilities. The first frame may be a conventional association request frame with additional information element added to support newer features such as multi-link capabilities. Alternatively, the first frame may be a new frame that is used for multi-link setup request.”) by another communication apparatus (i.e. Fig. 2 NON-AP MLD 104-1 is another a communication apparatus sending the Association Request to AP MLSD 102 in Fig. 1. See also paragraph 84); and
a transmission unit (i.e. Fig. 6 input/output data 602 interface – Paragraph 90) configured to set, in a case where the wireless communication link establishment is accepted for some of the plurality of links indicated by the information while the wireless communication link establishment is rejected for some of the plurality of links indicated by the information (Per paragraphs 85 and 86 a second frame as a Response Frame is returned to the NON-AP-MLD 104-1 by the AP-MLD AP where in the second response frame contains a status code field to indicate link establishment request is accepted or rejected. Note in paragraph 85 of the group of communications links are accepted except the first link where in the first link being rejected and/or disabled per paragraph 86) , information of a Status code that is included in an Association Response frame and is a common Status code for the plurality of links to information indicating success (see paragraph 85 see status code) , and transmit the Association Response frame to the other communication apparatus. (Per paragraph 85 indicates the status code can be rejection indicating a failure, Per Paragraph 86 indicates the status code can be success reflected by AP_MLD 102 accepting the multi-link association request or per paragraph 087 in another example embodiment, the second frame indicates that the AP-MLD 102 accepts the multi-link association request with conditions.)
Regarding claim 2, Kwon discloses the communication apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein in a case where the wireless communication link establishment is accepted for one link among the plurality of links indicated by the information and the link is a link used to receive the Association Request frame, the transmission unit transmits the Association Response frame without a Multi-link element to the other communication apparatus. (Kwon discloses in paragraphs 14 and 15 indicates that the response frame can use the single link association embedded in the status code field within the response frame.)
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected in the same scope as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al (US 20230021262 A1, herein after referred to as Huang).
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses a communication apparatus (i.e. Figs. 2 and 8 AP MLD and components detailed in Fig. 20 ) configured to perform wireless communication compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards via a plurality of wireless communication links using a different frequency from each other (See paragraphs 122 and 124 on compliance to IEEE 802.11 and paragraphs 126 and 141-142), the communication apparatus comprising:
a reception unit (i.e. Fig. 20 Transceiver 205 of AP MLD ) configured to receive an Association Request frame including (i.e. Fig. 8 AP MLD receives a multi-link association request frame ) information indicating a plurality of links for which wireless communication link establishment is requested (see paragraph 5 stating : “ [0005] A station multi-link device (STA MLD) may establish a plurality of links to an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) by using one link. A multi-link association request frame or a multi-link association response frame in the multi-link establishment operation carries information about the plurality of links, to establish the plurality of links.”) by another communication apparatus (i.e. another communication apparatus being STA MLD in Fig.8); and
a transmission unit (i.e. Fig. 20 Transceiver 205 of AP MLD ) configured to set, in a case where the wireless communication link establishment is accepted for some of the plurality of links indicated by the information while the wireless communication link establishment is rejected for some of the plurality of links indicated by the information (see AP MLD sending a multi-link association response frame at S304 in Fig. 8 and the Multi-Link Association Response Frame contains status information of each requested link establishment and the Response Frame with status codes is shown in Fig. 9. See paragraphs 202 and 203 detailing the status can be success and/or fail) , information of a Status code that is included in an Association Response frame and is a common Status code for the plurality of links to information indicating fail, (See paragraphs 201 and 202 on success and fail status being transmitted in the response frame ) and transmit the Association Response frame to the other communication apparatus. (See Fig. 8 in step S304 AP MLD transmits to STA MLD the multi-link association response frame to the other communication apparatus being STA MLD)
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses a communication method (i.e. Figs 1-19 in particular Figs. 2 and 8) of performing wireless communication compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards via a plurality of wireless communication links using a different frequency from each other(See paragraphs 122 and 124 on compliance to IEEE 802.11 and paragraphs 126 and 141-142), the communication method comprising:
receiving an Association Request frame (Fig. 8 S301 STA MLD transmits a multi-link association request frame) including information indicating a
plurality of links for which wireless communication link establishment is requested; (see paragraph 5 stating : “ [0005] A station multi-link device (STA MLD) may establish a plurality of links to an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) by using one link. A multi-link association request frame or a multi-link association response frame in the multi-link establishment operation carries information about the plurality of links, to establish the plurality of links.”) and
transmitting the Association Response frame (i.e. Fig. 8 AP MLD transmits a multi-link association response frame to STA MLD) by setting, in a case where the
wireless communication link establishment is accepted for some of the plurality of links
indicated by the information while the wireless communication link establishment is
rejected for some of the plurality of links indicated by the information(see AP MLD sending a multi-link association response frame at S304 in Fig. 8 and the Multi-Link Association Response Frame contains status information of each requested link establishment and the Response Frame with status codes is shown in Fig. 9. See paragraphs 202 and 203 detailing the status can be success and/or fail), information of a Status code that is included in an Association Response frame and is a common Status code for the plurality of links to information indicating success. (See Table 2 the common status code 0 success and code 1 is rejected/failure)
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses a communication method (i.e. Figs 1-19 in particular Figs. 2 and 8) of performing wireless communication compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards via a plurality of wireless communication links using a different frequency from each other(See paragraphs 122 and 124 on compliance to IEEE 802.11 and paragraphs 126 and 141-142), the communication method comprising:
receiving an Association Request frame (Fig. 8 S301 STA MLD transmits a multi-link association request frame) including information indicating a
plurality of links for which wireless communication link establishment is requested; (see paragraph 5 stating : “ [0005] A station multi-link device (STA MLD) may establish a plurality of links to an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) by using one link. A multi-link association request frame or a multi-link association response frame in the multi-link establishment operation carries information about the plurality of links, to establish the plurality of links.”) and
transmitting the Association Response frame (i.e. Fig. 8 AP MLD transmits a multi-link association response frame to STA MLD) by setting, in a case where the
wireless communication link establishment is accepted for some of the plurality of links
indicated by the information while the wireless communication link establishment is
rejected for some of the plurality of links indicated by the information(see AP MLD sending a multi-link association response frame at S304 in Fig. 8 and the Multi-Link Association Response Frame contains status information of each requested link establishment and the Response Frame with status codes is shown in Fig. 9. See paragraphs 202 and 203 detailing the status can be success and/or fail), information of a Status code that is included in an Association Response frame and is a common Status code for the plurality of links to information indicating success. (See Table 2 the common status code 0 success and code 1 is rejected/fail)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kwon.
Regarding claim 6, Huang discloses a communication apparatus (Figs. 2 and 8 STA MLD detailed in Fig. 19 see paragraphs 280-281) configured to perform wireless communication compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards via a plurality of wireless communication links using a different frequency from each other(See paragraphs 122 and 124 on compliance to IEEE 802.11 and paragraphs 126 and 141-142), the communication apparatus comprising:
a first transmission unit (Fig. 19 communication unit 101) configured to transmit an Association Request frame (i.e. Fig. 8 STA MLD at S301 sends a multi-link association request frame ) including information indicating a plurality of links for which wireless communication link establishment is requested; (see paragraph 5 stating : “ [0005] A station multi-link device (STA MLD) may establish a plurality of links to an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) by using one link. A multi-link association request frame or a multi-link association response frame in the multi-link establishment operation carries information about the plurality of links, to establish the plurality of links.”)
a reception unit (i.e. Fig. 19 communication unit 101) configured to receive, as a response to the Association Request frame, an Association Response frame (i.e. STA MLD receives a multi-link association response frame in which information of a Status code that is included in the Association Response frame is received at S304 in Fig. 8 ) and is a common Status code for the plurality of links is set to information indicating fail; (see AP MLD sending a multi-link association response frame at S304 in Fig. 8 and the Multi-Link Association Response Frame contains status information of each requested link establishment and the Response Frame with status codes is shown in Fig. 9. See paragraphs 202 and 203 detailing the status can be success and/or fail. See Table 2 the common status code 0 success and code 1 is rejected/fail).
Huang fails to disclose a generation unit configured to generate, based on the reception of the Association Request frame by the reception unit, an Association Request frame that designates, as a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is requested, a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is accepted in the Association Request frame; and
a second transmission unit configured to transmit the Association Request
frame generated by the generation unit.
Kwon in the same endeavor discloses a generation unit (i.e. Fig. 6 Processor Device 606) configured to generate, based on the reception of the response to an Association Request frame by the reception unit(i.e. in view of 112 (b) rejection interpreted as based on the reception of the response to the Association Request frame by the reception unit, a second Association Request frame…” )
, an Association Request frame that designates, as a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is requested, a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is accepted in the Association Request frame; (i.e. paragraph 0085 indicates the non-AP-MLD 104-1 sends a third frame on a second link that request a multi-link association with the AP-MLD 102 wherein the group of links includes the second link.) and
a second transmission unit (i.e. Fig. 6 input/output data 602 )configured to transmit the Association Request frame generated by the generation unit. (i.e. per paragraphs 0085-0086 indicates the non-AP-MLD 104-1 sends a third frame on a second link that request a multi-link association with the AP-MLD 102 wherein the group of links includes the second link.)
In view of the above, having Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique and then given the well- established teaching of Kwon’s techniques for Multi-Link Device association and reassociation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique as taught by Kwon’s techniques for Multi-Link Device association and reassociation, since Kwon states in paragraph 56 that the modification results in reassociating a first-device from a second-device to a third-device within the multi-link communications system.
Regarding claim 10 Huang discloses a communication method (Figs. 1-19 and in particular Figs. 2 and 8) of performing wireless communication compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards via a plurality of wireless communication links using a different frequency from each other(See paragraphs 122 and 124 on compliance to IEEE 802.11 and paragraphs 126 and 141-142), the communication method comprising: performing a first transmission to transmit an Association Request frame (i.e. Fig. 8 STA MLD at S301 sends a multi-link association request frame ) including information indicating a plurality of links for which wireless communication link establishment is requested; (see paragraph 5 stating : “ [0005] A station multi-link device (STA MLD) may establish a plurality of links to an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) by using one link. A multi-link association request frame or a multi-link association response frame in the multi-link establishment operation carries information about the plurality of links, to establish the plurality of links.”)
receiving, as a response to the Association Request frame, an Association Response frame in which information of a Status code that is included in the Association Response frame (i.e. STA MLD receives a multi-link association response frame in which information of a Status code that is included in the Association Response frame is received at S304 in Fig. 8 ) and is a common Status code for the plurality of links is set to information indicating fail; (see AP MLD sending a multi-link association response frame at S304 in Fig. 8 and the Multi-Link Association Response Frame contains status information of each requested link establishment and the Response Frame with status codes is shown in Fig. 9. See paragraphs 202 and 203 detailing the status can be success and/or fail. See Table 2 the common status code 0 success and code 1 is rejected/fail).
Huang fails to disclose generating, based on the reception of the Association Request frame, an Association Request frame that designates, as a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is requested, a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is accepted in the Association Request frame; and performing a second transmission to transmit the generated Association Request frame.
Kwon discloses generating, based on the reception of the Association Request frame, an Association Request frame that designates, as a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is requested, a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is accepted in the Association Request frame; (i.e. paragraph 0085 indicates the non-AP-MLD 104-1 sends a third frame on a second link that request a multi-link association with the AP-MLD 102 wherein the group of links includes the second link.) and performing a second transmission to transmit the generated Association Request frame. (i.e. per paragraphs 0085-0086 indicates the non-AP-MLD 104-1 sends a third frame on a second link that request a multi-link association with the AP-MLD 102 wherein the group of links includes the second link.)
In view of the above, having Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique and then given the well- established teaching of Kwon’s techniques for Multi-Link Device association and reassociation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique as taught by Kwon’s techniques for Multi-Link Device association and reassociation, since Kwon states in paragraph 56 that the modification results in reassociating a first-device from a second-device to a third-device within the multi-link communications system.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Huang et al (US 20210120602 A1, herein after referred to as Huang-2).
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose, further comprising a processing unit configured to perform a 4-way handshake with the other communication apparatus and generate a group temporal key (GTK).
Huang-2 in the same endeavor discloses a processing unit configured to perform a 4-way handshake with the other communication apparatus and generate a group temporal key (GTK). (See abstract and Fig. 4 and paragraph 62 indicating after performing 4-way handshake then PTK is created and GTK delivered. See Fig. 11C )
In view of the above, having Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique and then given the well- established teaching of Huang-2 ‘s techniques for Multi-Link Device re-setup and transition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique as taught by Huang-2 ‘s techniques for Multi-Link Device re-setup and transition, since Huang-2 states in paragraph 88 that the modification results in key delivery for authentication.
Regarding claim 5, Huang modified by Huang-2 discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 4 but Huang further fails to disclose 5. wherein, in a case where the link used to receive the Association Request frame is a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is rejected, the processing unit performs the 4-way handshake by using a link different from the link used to receive the Association Request frame.
Huang-2 discloses wherein, in a case where the link used to receive the Association Request frame is a link for which the wireless communication link establishment is rejected, the processing unit performs the 4-way handshake by using a link different from the link used to receive the Association Request frame.(in the abstract and paragraphs 81 and 88 when link establishment fails then 4-way handshake by using a link different from the link used to receive the Association Request frame.)
In view of the above, having Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique and then given the well- established teaching of Huang-2 ‘s techniques for Multi-Link Device re-setup and transition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique as taught by Huang-2 ‘s techniques for Multi-Link Device re-setup and transition, since Huang-2 states in paragraph 88 that the modification results in key delivery for authentication.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kwon and further in view of Adachi et al (US 20220110123 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Huang modified by Kwon discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein in a case where the accepted link is a link different from a link used by the first transmission unit, the second transmission unit transmits the Association Request frame by using the accepted
link.
Adachi in the same endeavor discloses disclose wherein in a case where the accepted link is a link different from a link used by the first transmission unit, the second transmission unit transmits the Association Request frame by using the accepted
link. (See paragraph 353 discloses the accepted link is the primary link on which Association Request should only be transmitted )
In view of the above, having Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique modified by Huang-2 ‘s techniques for Multi-Link Device re-setup and transition and then given the well- established teaching of Adachi’s ‘s techniques for sending Association Request on primary link, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Huang ’s Multi-Link establishment technique modified by Huang-2 ‘s techniques for Multi-Link Device re-setup and transition as taught by Adachi’s ‘s techniques for sending Association Request on primary link, since Adachi states in paragraph 354 that the modification results in omitting messages that notify the STA MLD of the primary link from the AP MLD resulting in wireless communication spectrum efficiency.
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:
“a reception unit” in Claim 1
“a transmission unit” in Claim 1
“a reception unit” in Claim 3
“a transmission unit” in Claim 3
“a processing unit” in Claim 4
“a first transmission unit” in Claim 6
“a reception unit” in Claim 6
“a generation unit” in Claim 6
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474