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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 01/05/2026.
Claims 2-19 and 22-31 are pending in this application, with claims 2,11,22 and 31 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
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 22-24,28 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6 of U.S. Patent No. US12058750B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1,6 of Patent No. US12058750B2 incorporates all the limitations of the claims 22-24,28 and 31 of instant application.
Instant Application 18/767952
Patent No. US12058750B2
Claims 22-23,28,31, An apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: receive a first data unit on a first link, wherein the first data unit includes a first control field; receive a second data unit on a second link, wherein the second data unit includes a second control field, and wherein at least one of the first control field or the second control field provide information to align an end of a first control response with an end of a second control response; transmit the first control response on the first link in response to the first data unit; and transmit the second control response on the second link in response to the second data unit, the one or more processors being configured to cause the apparatus to transmit the first control response and the second control response based on the information. wherein: the first control field includes a first duration field; and the second control field includes a second duration field, at least one of the first duration field or the second duration field provide the information to align an end of the first control response with an end of the second control response. wherein: the first link comprises a first non-simultaneous transmit and receive (non-STR) link; and the second link comprises a second non-STR link.
Claim 1, An apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: a first station interface configured to obtain a first data unit on a first non-simultaneous transmit and receive (non-STR) link and obtain a second data unit on a second non-STR link; a processing system configured to:
generate a first control response for the first data unit with one or more parameters to be transmitted on the first non-STR link, the one or more parameters of the first control response based on a duration field in at least one of the first data unit or the second data unit; generate a second control response for the second data unit with one or more parameters to be transmitted on the second non-STR link, the one or more parameters of the second control response based on the duration field in the at least one of the first data unit or the second data unit; and
configure the one or more parameters of the second control response in accordance with the one or more parameters of the first control response to align the first control response and the second control response by matching a length of the first control response and a length of the second control response; and
the first station interface or a second station interface configured to output the first control response for transmission on the first non-STR link and the second control response for transmission on the second non-STR link.
Claim 24, wherein: of the first control response; and the second duration field indicates a second duration from an end of the second data unit to an end of the second control response.
Claim 6, wherein the duration field indicates a duration from an end of the first data unit or the second data unit to an end of the first control response or the second control response, respectively.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1,6 of Patent No. US12058750B2 incorporates all the limitations of the claims 22-24,28 and 31 of instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 2,8-11,17-19,22 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by FISCHER (US 2021/0195540 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Fischer”).
Regarding Claims 2,11,22 and 31, Fischer discloses an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: output for transmission a first data unit on a first link (Fischer Fig.17 Para[0141-142] A link 1 with RTS and CTS (i.e. data) and trigger), wherein the first data unit includes a first control field (Fischer Fig.17 Para[0141-142] The RTS duration field (i.e. control field)); output for transmission a second data unit on a second link (Fischer Fig.17 Para[0141-142] A link 2 with RTS and CTS (i.e. data)), wherein the second data unit includes a second control field (Fischer Fig.17 Para[0141-142] The RTS duration field (i.e. control field)), and wherein at least one of the first control field or the second control field provide information to align an end of a first control response with an end of a second control response (Fischer Fig.17 Para[0141-142] The alignment of BAs (i.e. control response) after receiving trigger) obtain the first control response on the first link after outputting the first data unit for transmission, the first control response being in response to the first data unit (Fischer Fig.17 Para[0048,0141-142] The BA on line 1); and obtain the second control response on the second link after outputting the second data unit for transmission, the second control response being in response to the second data unit (Fischer Fig.17 Para[0048,0141-142] The BA on link 2 aligned to end with end of BA on link 1).
Specifically for claims 2 and 22, Fischer discloses the apparatus that includes a processor (Fischer Fig.2 Para[0056] A processor) and a memory (Fischer Fig.2 Para[0056] A memory).
Regarding claims 8,17 and 28, Fischer discloses the methods and the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 2. Fischer further discloses wherein: the first link comprises a first non-simultaneous transmit and receive (non-STR) link; and the second link comprises a second non-STR link (Fischer Para[0062] The links are NSTR).
Regarding claims 9,18 and 29, Fischer discloses the methods and the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 2. Fischer further discloses wherein the first control field is carried within a medium access control (MAC) header of the first data unit, and wherein the second control field is carried within a MAC header of the second data unit (Fischer Para[0144-145] An information provided in the MAC header is used for transmission alignment).
Regarding claims 10,19 and 30, Fischer discloses the methods and the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 2. Fischer further discloses wherein, to align the end of the first control response with the end of the second control response, the first control field and the second control field are configured to match a length of the first control response and a length of the second control response (Fischer Para[0134] The responses are matched in length).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3,12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of JANG et al. (US 2021/0315036 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Jang”).
Regarding claims 3,12 and 23, Fischer discloses the methods and the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 2. Fischer does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first control field includes a first duration field; and the second control field includes a second duration field, at least one of the first duration field or the second duration field provide the information to align an end of the first control response with an end of the second control response.
However, Jang from the same field of invention discloses wherein: the first control field includes a first duration field; and the second control field includes a second duration field, at least one of the first duration field or the second duration field provide the information to align an end of the first control response with an end of the second control response (Jang Para[0095-96] The PPDU contains MAC header from MPDU for frame control field and duration/ID field (i.e. parameters)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fischer to have the feature of “wherein: the first control field includes a first duration field; and the second control field includes a second duration field, at least one of the first duration field or the second duration field provide the information to align an end of the first control response with an end of the second control response” as taught by Jang. The motivation would have been to improve link utilization rate (Jang Para[0006]).
Claims 4,13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Jang and further in view of Gan et al. (US 2022/0141785 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Gan”).
Regarding claims 4,13 and 24, Fischer in view of Jang discloses the methods and the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 2. Fischer in view of Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first duration field indicates a first duration from an end of the first data unit to an end of the first control response; and the second duration field indicates a second duration from an end of the second data unit to an end of the second control response.
However, Gan from the same field of invention discloses wherein: the first duration field indicates a first duration from an end of the first data unit to an end of the first control response; and the second duration field indicates a second duration from an end of the second data unit to an end of the second control response (Gan Para[0018,0074,0126] The transmission duration information carried in PPDUs is used to determine another PPDU duration. The PPDU carries response information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fischer and Jang to have the feature of “wherein: the first duration field indicates a first duration from an end of the first data unit to an end of the first control response; and the second duration field indicates a second duration from an end of the second data unit to an end of the second control response” as taught by Gan. The motivation would have been to improve frequency efficiency when simultaneous transmission and reception is not supported (Gan Para[0057]).
Claims 5-6,14-15 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Dimou et al. (US 1234567, hereinafter referred to as “Dimou”).
Regarding claims 5,14 and 25, Fischer discloses the methods and the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 2. Fischer does not explicitly disclose wherein: the information includes a first value to be indicated in the first control field and a second value to be indicated in the second control field; and the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to determine the first value and the second value such that the end of the first control response is aligned with the end of the second control response.
However, Dimou from the same field of invention discloses wherein: the information includes a first value to be indicated in the first control field and a second value to be indicated in the second control field; and the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to determine the first value and the second value such that the end of the first control response is aligned with the end of the second control response (Dimou Para[0026,0064-69] A timer period (i.e. duration) is provided for aligning transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fischer to have the feature of “wherein: the information includes a first value to be indicated in the first control field and a second value to be indicated in the second control field; and the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to determine the first value and the second value such that the end of the first control response is aligned with the end of the second control response” as taught by Dimou. The motivation would have been for efficient operation of a wireless node by synchronization of physical layers (Dimou Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 6,15 and 26, Fischer discloses the methods and the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 2. Fischer does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first value includes a first duration value to be indicated in a first duration field of the first control field; and the second value includes a second duration value to be indicated in a second duration field of the second control field.
However, Dimou from the same field of invention discloses wherein: the first value includes a first duration value to be indicated in a first duration field of the first control field; and the second value includes a second duration value to be indicated in a second duration field of the second control field (Dimou Para[0061,0079] The durations value provided in CTS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fischer to have the feature of “wherein: the first value includes a first duration value to be indicated in a first duration field of the first control field; and the second value includes a second duration value to be indicated in a second duration field of the second control field” as taught by Dimou. The motivation would have been for efficient operation of a wireless node by synchronization of physical layers (Dimou Para[0002]).
Claims 7,16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0364555 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”).
Regarding claims 7,16 and 27, Fischer discloses the methods and the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 2. Fischer does not explicitly disclose wherein the second control response comprises padding configured to align the end of the first control response with the end of the second control response in accordance with the second control field.
However, Huang from the same field of invention discloses wherein the second control response comprises padding configured to align the end of the first control response with the end of the second control response in accordance with the second control field (Huang Para[0115] The EOF padding (i.e. parameter) is applied to the MPDU (i.e. response))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fischer to have the feature of “wherein the second control response comprises padding configured to align the end of the first control response with the end of the second control response in accordance with the second control field” as taught by Huang. The motivation would have been to provide efficient use of resources (Huang Para[0003]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0014725 to Yu (Fig.26 and associated paragraphs)
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights