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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, Sub-species A in the reply filed on 7/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that overlapping limitations mean there is no mutual exclusivity between the species, and thus restriction is improper. This is not found persuasive because restriction between species is appropriate when the claims are directed to independent or distinct inventions, even if there are overlapping features. The key consideration is whether the inventions, as claimed, are independent or distinct, not whether there is complete mutual exclusivity in every limitation. In the current application, the claims are directed to different actors (e.g., a user equipment (UE) versus an access point), and the figures and relevant portions of the specification illustrate these distinctions. Despite some overlapping limitations, the inventions are not the same and require separate examination.
The MPEP notes: Species may be either independent or related under the particular disclosure. Where species under a claimed genus are not connected in any of design, operation, or effect under the disclosure, the species are independent inventions. … Where inventions as disclosed and claimed are both (A) species under a claimed genus and (B) related, then the question of restriction must be determined by both the practice applicable to election of species and the practice applicable to other types of restrictions such as those covered in MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j). Because the claims are directed to inventions performed by different actors, and the figures and relevant portions of the specification demonstrate these distinctions, the restriction requirement is maintained. The presence of overlapping limitations does not preclude restriction when the inventions are otherwise independent or distinct as claimed.
The MPEP, only requires that each group have features not found in the other group (see section 806.04(f), “Where two or more species are claimed, a requirement for restriction to a single species may be proper if the species are mutually exclusive. Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first”). It is the examiner’s belief that each group, including the dependent claims, have features unique to that particular group.
Alleged Species I
Alleged Species II
Species I is a Wireless station (Fig.13) and Species II is a UE (Fig.14, Par.197-198). Clearly directed to different devices and the non-underlined text describe actions that the other does not do, hence mutually exclusive.
Alleged Species I
Alleged Species III
Species I is a Wireless station (Fig.13) and Species III is a Network entity (Fig.14, Par.197-198). Clearly directed to different devices and the non-underlined text describe actions that the other does not do, hence mutually exclusive.
Alleged Species I
Alleged Species IV
Species I is a Wireless station (Fig.13) and Species IV is an Access point (Fig.15). Clearly directed to different devices, both receive information from different sources and perform different actions. hence mutually exclusive.
Alleged Species II
Alleged Species III
Species II is UE and Species III is a network entity. They are clearly different devices and while they can do what the other does, they are clearly different embodiments, hence mutually exclusive.
Alleged Species II
Alleged Species IV
Species II is UE and Species IV is an access point. They are clearly different devices and while they can do what the other does, they are clearly different embodiments, hence mutually exclusive.
Alleged Species III
Alleged Species IV
Species III is a network entity and Species IV is an access point. They are clearly different devices and while they can do what the other does, they are clearly different embodiments, hence mutually exclusive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticpated by Yu (WO202528699).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu an apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless station (Par.125, Par.136, tablet 140 and Fig.1:140), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to cause the wireless station to: receive spectrum sharing information from a network entity or a user equipment (UE) (Par.146, first device is phone, second device is tablet (i.e. wireless station). Par.143-145, first devices sends first information to tablet via WLAN. Par.147 and Par.139: first information is spectrum sharing information, the information permits adjustments so the two systems can co-exist by avoiding/reducing interference); and perform an action associated with sharing a spectrum with cellular communications (Par.147 and Par.172, second device adjust transmission policy in the WLAN based on first information. Par.174, transmission power).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (WO202528699) in view of Matsumura 20240089955
Regarding Claim 2, Yu teaches wherein to receive the spectrum sharing information, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the wireless station to: receive the spectrum sharing information (Par.139, Par.147), however Yu does not expressly teach the wireless station to: receive the spectrum sharing information in a higher layer payload (HLP) message with a wireless local area network (WLAN) protocol; and verify the HLP message.
Matsumura teaches a wireless station receiving information in a higher layer payload (HLP) message with a wireless local area network (WLAN) protocol (Par.179, With given information being transmitted/notified from UE #1 to UE #2, information may be shared between UE #1 and UE #2. To share information, existing communication methods, such as an unlicensed band (or a shared spectrum), WiFi, and Bluetooth (trademark), may be applied. For example, in FIG. 15B, UE #1 may transfer/perform information sharing of given information to/with UE #2, using a higher layer. In other words, higher layer signaling may be used in communication between the UEs. Par.71, higher layer signaling may be, for example, any one of Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, Medium Access Control (MAC) signaling, broadcast information, and the like, or a combination of these. In the present disclosure, RRC, RRC signaling, an RRC parameter, a higher layer, a higher layer parameter, an RRC information element (IE), and an RRC message may be interchangeably interpreted); and verify the HLP message.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Yus’ spectrum sharing information system with the teachings of Matsumura utilizing well-known higher-layer WLAN payload message to achieve reliable and standardized inter-device communication of policy or status messages (e.g. spectrum sharing information) in real-time using robust, proven communication stacks for effective utilization and coordination between multiple systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barton (US 10,349,384) – Col.3-Col.4, Col.8: Wifi network and RAN have overlapping coverage areas. Spectrum controller can be in base station and allocates spectrum resources.
Chen (US 2021/0068094) – Par.76, Par.85, Par.104, Par.131-137. processing engine 112 (e.g., the obtaining module 502) may obtain information related to a first spectrum of the first wireless network (i.e. Wi-fi) for transmitting the second wireless network data based on the protocol… The control channel from the base station 140 may be transmitted to the user terminal 130 along with the second wireless network data over the first spectrum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights