DETAILED ACTION
I. Introduction
This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 18/624,558 (“’558 Reissue Application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 2 April 2024. Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue of U.S. Patent 10,499,431 (“’431 patent”) titled “CHANNEL ACCESS METHOD FOR VERY HIGH THROUGHPUT (VHT) WIRELESS LOCAL ACCESS NETWORK SYSTEM AND STATION SUPPORTING THE CHANNEL ACCESS METHOD”, which issued on 3 December 2019 with claims 1-16 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘431 patent was filed on 19 September 2017 and assigned U.S. patent application number 15/708,503 (“’503 application”).
II. Other Proceedings
On 21 April 2022, a complaint was filed by applicant LG Electronics Inc. against TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd.) et al.1, alleging infringement of one or more claims of 6 different patents, including the ‘431 patent. After the filing of a joint motion to dismiss the litigation on 13 July 2023, the court granted the motion and dismissed the litigation on 17 July 2023.
In addition, on 21 April 2023, TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd.) et al. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-16 of the ‘431 patent. However, prior to institution, on 17 July 2023, all parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. On 21 July 2023, the PTAB granted the motion, terminating the IPR proceeding.
III. Priority
The instant reissue application is a continuation reissue of reissue application 16/785,402, filed 7 February 2020.
The ‘503 application is a continuation of application 15/357,438, filed 21 November 2016, now U.S. Patent 9,788,346, which is a continuation of application 14/800,425 (“’425 application”), filed 15 July 2015, now U.S. Patent 9,526,114, which is a continuation of application 14/579,286, filed 22 December 2014, now U.S. Patent 9,107,222, which is a continuation of application 12/999,836 (“’836 application”), filed 18 June 2009, now U.S. Patent 8,989,158, which is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of international application PCT/KR2009/003264.
The ‘503 application also claims priority to Korean application KR10-2008-0057246, filed 18 June 2008. A certified English language translation of the foreign priority document was filed 10 July 2014 during prosecution of the ‘836 application. Applicants’ foreign priority claim has therefore been perfected.
As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ’431 patent, the patent being reissued.
That being the case, applicants are entitled to a priority date of 18 June 2008, the effective filing date of the ‘503 application, to the extent that the claims are fully supported by the foreign priority application. The priority dates will be determined on a claim-by-claim basis as necessary.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is not on or after March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions do not apply. Instead, the earlier ‘First to Invent’ provisions will apply.
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 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.
IV. Claim Construction
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances where applicants have included lexicographic definitions, either express or implied. Therefore, for the purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which Applicants are acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which would invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
V. Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 2 April 2024, has been received and entered into the record.
Applicant has amended the specification, as well as canceling claims 1-16, and adding new claims 17-36. Claims 17-36 are now pending in the application.
VI. Recapture under 35 U.S.C. § 251
In In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Step 1
With respect to step 1 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(A)), applicants seek to broaden the reissue claims by at least deleting/omitting the following limitations which are present in issued independent claim 1 of the ‘431 patent but omitted from independent reissue claim 17:
receiving … a plurality of request to send (RTS) frames … through a plurality of subchannels, each of the plurality of RTS frames being received through a corresponding one of the plurality of subchannels
transmitting … [a plurality of] clear to send (CTS) frame[s] … through [the plurality of] idle subchannels, each of the … CTS frame[s] being transmitted through a corresponding one of the [plurality of] idle subchannel[s]
wherein each of the … CTS frame[s] includes channel information related to the … idle subchannel[s] through which the [plurality of] CTS frame[s] are transmitted by the [destination STA], and the data frame is received through the [plurality of] idle subchannel[s] indicated by the channel information.
Analogous limitations present in issued independent claim 4 have also been deleted/omitted from the respective corresponding broadened reissue claim 22.
It is noted that independent reissue claim 27 (corresponding to issued independent claim 7), and independent reissue claim 32 (corresponding to issued independent claim 10) have retained the above cited limitations that were omitted from independent reissue claims 17 and 22.
Step 2
With respect to step 2 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(B)), there were several instances where applicants surrendered subject matter during prosecution of the original application (which became the patent to be reissued). The "original application" includes the patent family’s entire prosecution history. MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 94 USPQ2d 1598 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
During prosecution of the ‘836 application, applicants filed a response to a non-final rejection on 3 June 2013. Therein, independent claims 22 and 30 were amended to incorporate (amongst others) the features of receiving a plurality of request to send (RTS) frames through a plurality of subchannels, each of the plurality of RTS frames being received through each of the plurality of subchannels, and transmitting a plurality of clear to send (CTS) frames…each of the plurality of CTS frames being transmitted through each of the plurality of idle subchannels.
The courts have found that amending claims in order to define over the art to gain allowance of the claims, even in the absence of supporting argument, constitutes a surrender of subject matter. The above-cited amendment was made in order to gain allowance of the claims, and therefore constitutes surrendered subject matter.
Later during prosecution, applicants filed a response to a non-final rejection on 10 July 2014. Therein, independent claims 22 and 30 were amended to incorporate (amongst others) the features of if the … CTS frame[s] include channel information indicating all of the … idle subchannel[s] through which the … CTS frame[s] [are] transmitted, the data frame is transmitted via the … idle subchannel[s] indicated by the channel information.
Furthermore, during prosecution of the ‘425 application, applicants filed a response to final rejection on 13 July 2016. Therein, independent claims 1 and 6 were amended to incorporate (amongst others) the features of transmitting a plurality of request to send (RTS) frames … through a plurality of subchannels, each of the plurality of RTS frames being transmitted through a corresponding one of the plurality of subchannels.
Accordingly, the surrendered subject matter in this case includes any claim drawn to a wireless communication system/method that fails to include:
(1) receiving a plurality of request to send (RTS) frames through a plurality of subchannels, each of the plurality of RTS frames being received through each of the plurality of subchannels;
(2) transmitting a plurality of clear to send (CTS) frames…each of the plurality of CTS frames being transmitted through each of the plurality of idle subchannels; and
(3) if the … CTS frame[s] include channel information indicating all of the [plurality of] idle subchannel[s] through which the [plurality of] CTS frame[s] [are] transmitted, the data frame is transmitted via the [plurality of] idle subchannel[s] indicated by the channel information.
Given the above-cited surrendered subject matter, and in consideration of the subject matter omitted from new independent claims 17 and 22 (cited above in step 1 of the analysis), the Office concludes that the following broader aspects of reissue claims 17 and 22 are related to the subject matter surrendered during original prosecution of the ‘503 application:
receiving … a plurality of request to send (RTS) frames … through a plurality of subchannels, each of the plurality of RTS frames being received through a corresponding one of the plurality of subchannels
transmitting … [a plurality of] clear to send (CTS) frame[s] … through [the plurality of] idle subchannel[s], each of the … CTS frame[s] being transmitted through a corresponding one of the [plurality of] idle subchannel[s]
wherein each of the … CTS frame[s] includes channel information related to the [plurality of] idle subchannel[s] through which the [plurality of] CTS frame[s] are transmitted by the [destination STA], and the data frame is received through the [plurality of] idle subchannel[s] indicated by the channel information.
Step 3
With respect to step 3 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(C)), the Office has reviewed and analyzed new independent claims 17 and 22, and concluded that there has been no material narrowing of the new reissue claims in such a way that recapture has been avoided.
Specifically, the new independent claims have been narrowed by requiring a plurality (i.e., two or more) of idle subchannels and a plurality of clear to send (CTS) frames, as opposed to the previously claimed “at least one idle subchannel” and “at least one clear to send (CTS) frame”. The claims have also been narrowed by including the limitation that “the data frame is included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).” However, none of these narrowing aspects are related to the above-cited broadened aspects of new claims 17 and 22.
Therefore, in view of the surrendered subject matter that has been broadened in the reissue claims, these claims are subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
Claims 17-26 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
The Office also notes that the surrendered subject matter cited above is relied upon by applicant as the error on which the instant reissue application is based, and were the surrendered subject matter to be restored to independent reissue claims 17 and 22, the error statement in the reissue declaration would be rendered defective, because the cited error would no longer be corrected by the claims presented. This would result in all claims being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based upon a defective reissue declaration.
VII. Specification
The specification is objected to for the following informalities:
37 CFR § 1.177(a) requires that all multiple reissue applications resulting from a single patent must include as the first sentence of their respective specifications a cross reference to the other reissue application(s). Accordingly, the first sentence of each reissue specification must provide notice stating that more than one reissue application has been filed, and it must identify each of the reissue applications and their relationship within the family of reissue applications, and to the original patent. An example of the suggested language to be inserted is as follows:
Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of Patent No. 10,499,431. The reissue applications are application number 16/785,402; and application number 18/624,558 (the present continuation reissue application).
See MPEP § 1451.
VIII. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,989,158 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent 8,989,158 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 17 and 27, with the exception that the instant claims 17 and 27 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 17 and 27 are therefore obvious over reference claims 1 and 4 in view of Trainin.
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,989,158 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claims 6 and 8 of U.S. Patent 8,989,158 include all of the limitations of instant claims 22 and 32, with the exception that the instant claims 22 and 32 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 22 and 32 are therefore obvious over reference claims 6 and 8 in view of Trainin.
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,107,222 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,107,222 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 17 and 27, with the exception that the instant claims 17 and 27 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 17 and 27 are therefore obvious over reference claim 1 in view of Trainin.
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,107,222 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claim 5 of U.S. Patent 9,107,222 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 22 and 32, with the exception that the instant claims 22 and 32 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 22 and 32 are therefore obvious over reference claim 5 in view of Trainin.
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,114 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,526,114 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 17 and 27, with the exception that the instant claims 17 and 27 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 17 and 27 are therefore obvious over reference claim 1 in view of Trainin.
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,114 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claim 3 of U.S. Patent 9,526,114 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 22 and 32, with the exception that the instant claims 22 and 32 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 4 and 10 are therefore obvious over reference claim 3 in view of Trainin.
Claims 17, 20, 27, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,788,346 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent 9,788,346 include all of the limitations of instant claims 17 and 27, with the exception that the instant claims 17 and 27 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 17 and 27 are therefore obvious over reference claims 1 and 9 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 20 and 30 include the limitation that the destination STA (i.e., the first station) is a non-AP station and the source STA (i.e., second station) is an AP station, as does reference claims 4 and 12. This renders reissue claims 20 and 30 obvious over reference claims 4 and 12 in view of Trainin.
Claims 22, 25, 32, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,788,346 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claims 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent 9,788,346 include all of the limitations of instant claims 22 and 32, with the exception that the instant claims 22 and 32 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 22 and 32 are therefore obvious over reference claims 5 and 13 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 25 and 35 include the limitation that the destination STA (i.e., the first station) is a non-AP station and the source STA (i.e., second station) is an AP station, as does reference claims 8 and 16. This renders reissue claims 25 and 35 obvious over reference claims 8 and 16 in view of Trainin.
Claims 17-21 and 27-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 17, 18, and 21 of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,983 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claims 1 and 21 of U.S. Reissue Patent RE49,983 include all of the limitations of instant claims 17 and 27, with the exception that the instant claims 17 and 27 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 17 and 27 are therefore obvious over reference claims 1 and 21 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 18 and 28 include the limitation that the channel information is indicative of the number of the plurality of idle subchannels being equal to 2 or 4 based on the number of the plurality of subchannels being equal to 4, as does reference claim 2. This renders reissue claims 18 and 28 obvious over reference claim 2 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 19 and 29 include the limitation that the channel information is indicative of the number of the plurality of idle subchannels being equal to 2 based on the number of the plurality of subchannels being equal to 2, as does reference claim 3. This renders reissue claims 19 and 29 obvious over reference claim 3 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 20 and 30 include the limitation that the destination STA (i.e., the first station) is a non-AP station and the source STA (i.e., second station) is an AP station, as does reference claim 17. This renders reissue claims 20 and 30 obvious over reference claim 17 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 21 and 31 include the limitation that the destination STA (i.e., the first station) is an AP station and the source STA (i.e., second station) is a non-AP station, as does reference claim 18. This renders reissue claims 20 and 30 obvious over reference claim 18 in view of Trainin.
Claims 22-26 and 32-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6, 19, 20, and 22 of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,983 in view of U.S. Patent 10,349,310 to Solomon Trainin (“Trainin”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are obvious over the reference claims.
Reference claims 4 and 22 of U.S. Reissue Patent RE49,983 include all of the limitations of instant claims 22 and 32, with the exception that the instant claims 22 and 32 require that the data frame be included in a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU).
Trainin, however, discloses the transmission of data within a transmission frame in the form of a high-throughput (HT) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize a PPDU for data transmission, since the PPDU provides the necessary packaging and control information for reliable wireless data transmission in the PHY layer.
Instant claims 22 and 32 are therefore obvious over reference claims 4 and 22 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 23 and 33 include the limitation that the channel information is indicative of the number of the plurality of idle subchannels being equal to 2 or 4 based on the number of the plurality of subchannels being equal to 4, as does reference claim 5. This renders reissue claims 23 and 33 obvious over reference claim 5 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 24 and 34 include the limitation that the channel information is indicative of the number of the plurality of idle subchannels being equal to 2 based on the number of the plurality of subchannels being equal to 2, as does reference claim 6. This renders reissue claims 24 and 34 obvious over reference claim 6 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 25 and 35 include the limitation that the destination STA (i.e., the first station) is a non-AP station and the source STA (i.e., second station) is an AP station, as does reference claim 19. This renders reissue claims 25 and 35 obvious over reference claim 19 in view of Trainin.
Instant claims 26 and 36 include the limitation that the destination STA (i.e., the first station) is an AP station and the source STA (i.e., second station) is a non-AP station, as does reference claim 20. This renders reissue claims 20 and 30 obvious over reference claim 20 in view of Trainin.
IX. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-26 would be allowable were the pending recapture and double patenting rejections to be overcome.
Claims 27-36 would be allowable were the pending double patenting rejections to be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed destination station and method performed by a destination station wherein a plurality of clear to send (CTS) frames are transmitted by the destination station to a receiving station, and wherein each of the plurality of CTS frames comprises channel information indicative of the plurality of idle subchannels as being available for the source station to transmit a data frame, as claimed in independent claims 17, 22, 27, and 32.
Dependent claims 18-21, 23-26, 28-31, and 33-36 distinguish over the prior art of record for the same reason.
X. Conclusion
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘431 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘431 patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant(s) are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which ‘431 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings in the Office, and litigation.
Applicant(s) are further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant(s) are also reminded that any amendments to the claims must comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, having clear support and antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke S. Wassum whose telephone number is (571) 272-4119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM, alternate Fridays off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
In addition, INFORMAL or DRAFT communications may be faxed directly to the examiner at 571-273-4119. Such communications must be clearly marked as INFORMAL, DRAFT or UNOFFICIAL.
Patent Center
Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. For more information, please visit the Patent Center information page at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center.
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Michael Fuelling /MF/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
lsw
14 October 2025
1 LG Electronics Inc. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd.) et al., 2:22cv00122 (E.D. Tex.).