DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 (i.e., “unit”) 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: “establishment unit” and “transmission unit” in claim 1, and “receiving unit” in claim 2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 1, 3, and 8 there are typographical errors in the claims. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
as per claim 1, “an establishment unit to establish a connection with a different communication apparatus via a plurality of links”;
as per claim 3, “…wherein the Trigger frame indicating that data has been received is a Block Acknowledgement (Ack) complying with an IEEE 802.11 standard series”; and
as per claim 8, “…establishing a connection with a different communication apparatus via a plurality of links…”.
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,513,762 (‘762 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of the ‘762 Patent, as shown in the chart below they are not patentably distinct as the broader claim scope of the current Application is anticipated by the narrower claim scope of the ‘762 Patent.
Current Application
‘762 Patent
1. A communication apparatus comprising: an establishment unit configured to establish connection with a different communication apparatus via a plurality of links; and
a transmission unit configured to transmit, when connection with the different communication apparatus is established by the establishment unit via the plurality of links, a Trigger frame being a Trigger frame defined by an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard, which is transmitted to the different communication apparatus, and in which a set of a Common Info field and a User Info field in the Trigger frame is included for each link established by the establishment unit.
1. A communication apparatus for wirelessly communicating with another communication apparatus, comprising:
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the other communication apparatus on a first link with the other communication apparatus, a trigger frame used as a trigger to instruct the other communication apparatus to execute data transmission on a second link, different from the first link, … wherein the trigger frame includes a Common Info field and one or more User Info fields, and a first User Info field among the one or more User Info fields of the trigger frame includes identification information for identifying the second link, …
12. The communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a second User Info field among the one or more User Info fields of the trigger frame includes identification information for identifying the first link.
7. The communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication apparatus operates as an access
point (AP) complying with an IEEE 802.11 standard series.
Although not expressly described, impliedly the “communication apparatus”, which sends the “Trigger Frame” in claim 1 is an AP complying with IEEE 802.11 standards.
Claims 8-9 recite substantially identical subject matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ‘762 Patent for the same reasons as illustrated in the chart above.
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claims 1 and 2, as noted above, the limitations: “establishment unit” and “transmission unit” in claim 1, and “receiving unit” in claim 2 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it/they uses/use a generic placeholder (i.e., unit), that is modified by functional language, without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function (see MPEP §2181).
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 2 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that “a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself” (see MPEP §2181(B) (internal citations omitted)), of which the Federal Circuit has recognized the functions of “receiving”, “storing”, “processing” data as being “coextensive” with a microprocessor. Id. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id.
Thus, as is the case here, with respect to the “receiving unit” and “transmitting unit”, which is directed to basic computer functions (i.e., “receiving”, see MPEP §2181(B)) Applicant’s disclosure of a general-purpose computer or microprocessor (see for example, ¶0136 of Applicant’s specification) is sufficient for the privilege of invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation to a specific computer function, as is the case here with respect to the functions performed by the “establishing unit”, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function (see MPEP §2181(B)).
In this case, however, the specification does not appear to describe, in sufficient detail, a corresponding algorithm for performing the claimed function, i.e., “to establish [a] connection with a different communication apparatus via a plurality of links”. Thus claim 1 is rejected as failing to distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In response to the Office action, if applicant does not want to have the claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) Present a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or (2) amend the claim limitation in a way that avoids interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function).
As per claim 2, it is unclear if the Trigger frame in claim 2, is different from the Trigger frame in claim 1, i.e., “…the communication apparatus transmits a Trigger frame indicating that data has been received, via the first link…”. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…the communication apparatus transmits a second Trigger frame indicating that data has been received, via the first link…”.
As per claim 3, it is unclear if “the Trigger frame” is with respect to the Trigger frame in claim 1 or 2. Based on the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 2 above, the Examiner is interpreting claim 3 to read:
“…wherein the second Trigger frame indicating …”.
Secondly, however, a Block Acknowledgement (ACK) complying with an IEEE standard series is not a control/trigger frame1. Thus, it is not clear what Applicant means that “the Trigger frame indicating that data has been received is [a] Block Acknowledgment (ACK) complying with an IEEE standard series.”
Similarly, as per claim 4, it is unclear if “the Trigger frame” in the claim is with respect to the Trigger frame in claim 1 or 2. Based on the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 2 above, the Examiner is interpreting claims 4 to read:
“…wherein the Common Info field and the User Info field of the first Trigger frame include link information and channel information as information for executing communication via the first link and information for executing communication via the second link”.
As per claims 5 and 6, similar to above, it is not clear if “the Trigger frame” mentioned in the claims is with respect to the Trigger frame in claims 1 or 2. Moreover, it is not clear if the claims are introducing a new “Common Info field” and “User info field”. Finally, it is simply not clear what is meant by “…wherein information for executing communication via the first link and information for executing communication via the second link are stored in a Common Info field and a User Info field of the Trigger frame”. For instance, it is not clear of it means that the same “information for executing communication via the first link and information for executing communication via the second link” are stored in both “a Common Info field” and “a User Info field” or if only a first part of the “information for executing communication via the first link and information for executing communication via the second link” is stored in the “Common Info field” and a second part of the information is stored in “a User Info field”. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter (transitory signals per se).
As per claim 9, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (i.e. “a storage medium…”) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se (see "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media,” Notice of the Director, Jan. 26, 2010; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/101_crm_20100127.pdf). However, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Here, Applicant's specification (see ¶0143) provides an open-ended definition of a storage medium (i.e., “…recording on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer readable storage medium’)…”), which leaves room for a person having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably read the storage medium as also covering transitory propagating signals per se. Thus, since the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 may cover transitory propagating signals per se, the claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
In order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claim 9 the examiner would encourage the applicant to limit the scope of claim 9 to “a non-transitory storage medium”.
Allowable Subject Matter
For purpose of 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103, claims 1-9 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Cariou et al. (US 2021/0045095) considered the closest prior art teaches a trigger frame (i.e., an NDP feedback report poll (NFRP) trigger frame (TF) (NFRP TF), see ¶0107) including a link bitmap in a Common Info or User Info Field for identifying a set of links established between a communication apparatus (i.e., AP) and a different communication apparatus (i.e., users device(s)) (see abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 2., and ¶0061-0062).
However, the prior art does not teach or render obvious, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention, in the specific combinations and manner recited within the claims, the features of:
“…a Trigger frame being a Trigger frame defined by an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard, which is transmitted to the different communication apparatus, and in which a set of a Common Info field and a User Info field in the Trigger frame is included for each link established by the establishment unit.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
1 As opposed to the Block ACK, a Block ACK Request (BAR) may be considered a variant of a Trigger Frame (see for example, Khorov, E., Kiryanov, A., Lyakhov, A., & Bianchi, G. “A Tutorial on IEEE 802.11ax High Efficiency WLANs. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials”, (2019), see pp. 205-206, “C. Special Trigger Frames”)
Prosecution Insights