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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12, 18, 21-24 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18601940 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following:
- With respect to claims, the copending ’40 discloses a first access point (AP) device operating in a first basic service set (BSS) of wireless network, the first AP device comprising: at least one processor including processing circuitry and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (see claim 1, lines 1-4 of copending ‘40), cause the first AP to: receive, from a second AP operating in a second BSS different from the first BSS, information related to a target wake time (TWT) schedule for the second BSS (see claim 1, lines 6-8 of copending ‘40) and advertise, in the first BSS, the TWT schedule for the second BSS (see claim 1, lines 12-13 of copending ‘40); and determine to end a transmit opportunity (TXOP) in the first BSS before a start time of each TWT SP of the TWT schedule (see claim 1, lines 9-11 of copending ‘40).
- Regarding to the different between the Application and the copending Application such as first channel, second channel are different and Application eliminate “a first BSS ends before a start time of TWT SP”. Therefore, it have been held that the omission of the element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Raine, 168 USPQ 375 (bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not need would be obvious to one skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 15, 21, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monajemi et al. (Pub. No. 20200229086) in view of Ajami et al. (Pub. No. 20230164709).
- With respect to claims 1, 15, and 21, Monajemi teaches a method performed by a first access point (AP) operating in a first basic service set (BSS) of a wireless network, the method comprising: receiving, from a second AP operating in a second BSS different from the first BSS, information related to a target wake time (TWT) schedule for the second BSS (e.g. Fig. 7 step 710 and par. 13 and Fig. 4C shows the AP 304b in 302b BSS receive TWT 408); advertising, in the first BSS, the TWT schedule for the second BSS (e.g. Fig. 4c discloses AP 304a transmit TWT 408 in 302a BSS); and Monajemi fails to teaches a determining to end a transmit opportunity (TXOP) in the first BSS before a start time of each TWT SP of the TWT schedule. Ajami teaches determining to end a transmit opportunity (TXOP) in the first BSS before a start time of each TWT SP of the TWT schedule (see par. 61, 67, 72, 78, Figs. 5-7 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the method of determing to end a TXOP in the first BSS before a start time of each TWT SP of the TWT schedule to prevent overlapping between transmission.
- With respect to claims 8, 23, Monajemi teaches wherein the first AP and the second AP are members of a TWT coordinating multi-AP set (see par. 43).
- With respect to claims 9,24, Monajemi teaches wherein the processor is configured to negotiate with the second AP to participate in TWT multi-AP coordination, wherein the first AP is a shared AP and the second AP is a sharing AP (see par. 3, 34, 39-40).
Claim(s) 4, 18, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monajemi et al. (Pub. No. 20200229086) and Ajami in further view of Zhang et al. (Pub No. 20240365414).
- With respect to claims 4, 18, 22, Monajemi teaches limitation of claim 1 but fails to teach the processor is configured to: continue a transmit opportunity (TXOP) established in the first BSS during the TWT SP of the TWT schedule. Zhang teaches TXOP during the TWT SP of the TWT schedule (see par. 219, 225). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to implement the TXOP into Monajemi’s invention for increasing efficiency for communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
. Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references 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. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights