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 .
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. 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.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election without traverse of Claims 1 – 15 in the reply filed on the 07/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s submission received 07/06/2026.
2. Claims 1 - 29 are currently pending of which claim 1 – 15 was elected to be examined based on an Election/Restriction requirement. Claims 16 – 29 are withdrawn from consideration.
Foreign Priority/Domestic benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed for Japanese patent application No.: 2023-107822 filed 06/30/2023 and 2023-107821 filed 06/30/2023
2. There is no claim to domestic priority according to the application data sheet and filing receipt.
Oath/Declaration
1. The applicant’s oath/declaration filed on 06/27/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements filed on 06/27/2024 is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
1. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 06/27/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
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 (claims 1 – 13 and 15) 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:
Claims 1 and 15:
“a receiving unit configured to receive a change request…”
“a processing unit configured to communicate with another apparatus…”
“a control unit configured to, in case where…”
Claims 6 and 9:
“an acquisition unit configured to acquire a dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) address…”
“...the acquisition unit performs control…”
Claim 8:
“a setting unit configured to perform setting to use a preset static…”
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1 – 4, 11 - 15is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravuvari et al. (US 2018/0116005 A1) in view of Morioka (US 2021/0219212 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ravuvari discloses: An electronic apparatus (see figure 3, label 115-a) comprising at least one memory and at least one processor (¶ 0093) which function as:
a receiving unit configured to receive (label 810 (¶ 0093) of figure 8)) a change request from a currently connected access point (AP) to change a connection destination AP to connect to; [¶ 0044 “The core network may then send a message to the mobile device indicating that the download handover to the target device was successful.” the first sentence of ¶ 0068 mentions that the target device can be AP 205-a).].
a processing unit configured to communicate (label 810 (¶ 0093) of figure 8)) with another apparatus via the currently connected AP and perform a specific process including transmission or reception of data; and [¶ 0040/¶ 0004 in view of ¶0066: the mobile device/electronic apparatus (mobile) is in initial communication with the communication network (serving AP 105-a of figure 3) to download content such as music files/video files etc. (specific process), implied another apparatus is present that stores/generate content to be downloaded]
a control unit configured [¶ 0113] to, in case where a connection destination change based on the change request is performed in a first state in which part of data for the specific process has been received or transmitted through communication with the other apparatus and reception or transmission of rest of the data has not been completed,
[¶ 0068: “Network node 320 may also send a message to UE 115-a indicating that download handover succeeded if a connection is successfully established. In some case, a confirmation message may be sent when the download handover occurs, or when the data download successfully completes at the target device, or both.” In other words, a portion of content that is not downloaded by 115-a (this involves another apparatus that the data is coming from within the network to be downloaded) triggers a handover at the serving network/AP (communicating network), the serving/communicating network/AP will try to communicated with a target device in order to continue the download of content, at the same time a message is sent to the UE 115-a to indicate handover succeed so that the UE 115-a can move to the target device (AP) in order to retrieve/combine the portion of content that is downloaded by the target network/AP”]
perform control to interrupt the specific process [¶ 0073: The data being downloaded by the UE is constantly checked and if it falls below a threshold an interruption occurs. ¶ 0066 provides a large list of issues that also can cause the UE to interrupt its data download (automatically)] and cancel a standby mode waiting for the reception or transmission of the rest of the data. [¶ 0041: “The mobile device may then stop the download prior to completing the download, for example before a first portion of the data file is downloaded to the mobile device, or after a first portion of the data file has been downloaded”. Looking at ¶ 003 (last line) in view of ¶ 0041, results in solving the problem of the UE wasting resources and time spent waiting for data download, the UE is capable of canceling its waiting time (standby mode) and continue receiving data on the handover/target network].
One detail missing from the reference of Ravuvari is that the serving AP sends the change request to the mobile device rather than the core network, such difference is seen in the secondary reference of Morioka, see ¶ 0211.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravuvari’ s system in view of Morioka. The motivation for making the above modification would have been: “the effect of interference is averted and communication quality is improved” [¶ 0211 of Morioka].
Claims 14 - 15 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1. Such element as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs is seen in ¶ 0009 of Ravuvari.
Claim 2, Ravuvari further discloses: The electronic apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the specific process is at least one of printing, scanning, and facsimile transmission. [¶ 0058, the mobile station can be a printer].
Claim 3, Ravuvari further discloses: The electronic apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processing unit does not start execution of another process different from the specific process in a state in which the standby mode is not canceled. [¶ 0040: “The UE may also stop an active download where other services conflict with the current download. These situations may result in the download being halted or canceled…”, in other words, other services are present which is not started when standby mode is not canceled].
Claim 4, Ravuvari further discloses: The electronic apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the processing unit performs control to execute the other process in response to an instruction issued to execute the other process in a state in which the standby mode is canceled. [¶ 0040: “The UE may also stop an active download where other services conflict with the current download. These situations may result in the download being halted or canceled…”, in other words, other services are present which is not stopped when the UE cancel its current download].
Claim 11, Ravuvari further discloses: The electronic apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the electronic apparatus performs IEEE 802.11ax connection to an AP and performs a process compliant with an IEEE 802.11 ax standard.[¶ 0061:” The STAs 215 in these examples may communicate according to the WLAN radio and baseband protocol including physical and MAC layers from IEEE 802.11, and its various versions including, but not limited to, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11a, 802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ad, 802.11ah, 802.11ax, etc.”].
Claim 12, Ravuvari further discloses: The electronic apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the electronic apparatus performs at least one of a process compliant with Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) and a process compliant with Target Wake Time (TWT). [¶ 0181 - ¶ 0182: OFDMA compliant].
Claim 13, Ravuvari further discloses: The electronic apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the connection destination change based on the change request is performed to change the connection destination AP to an AP using a 6 GHz frequency band. [¶ 0051 does not disclose 6GHZ, however, in ¶ 0061, 802.11 ax operates on 6GHZ as a set forth by 802.11ax standard].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights