DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received March 10, 2025 (the Response).
Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–17, and 19–23 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 10, 2025. These drawings are unacceptable for the reasons provided below.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) recites “These [numbering of sheets of drawings], if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. . . . The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion.” See MPEP § 608.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert “[i]n the Office Action dated December 10, 2025, the Examiner objected to the Drawings, which have been corrected in the replacement sheet(s) submitted herein. Thus, in light of the replacement sheet(s) submitted herein, withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.” Response 8.
The Examiner is unpersuaded of error. The numbering of sheets from the drawings received March 10, 2025 are not larger than the numbers used as reference characters.
The Objection
The drawings received March 10, 2025 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) for failing to include the numbering of sheets of drawings—if present—larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1):
The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.
The following is a quotation from MPEP § 2173.03:
The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. . . . If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also MPEP §§ 608.01(o), 2111.01 (reciting
if a claim term does not have an ordinary and customary meaning, the examiner should check the specification to determine whether it provides a meaning to the claim term. If no reasonably clear meaning can be ascribed to the claim term after considering the specification and prior art, the examiner should apply the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim term as it can be best understood. Also, the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the specification objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d).
).
The Specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) for failing to provide clear support so that the meaning of the terms in the claims are ascertainable by reference to the Specification. Notably, Specification fails to provide a clear meaning of the terms “proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request” and “proxy ARP cache” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. See below rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a):
The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
Claims 8–11, 13, and 14 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a) for the following informalities:
claim 8, line 11 should be “perform the proxy ARP reconfiguration.”
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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.”
“While we have held many times that a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning,” in such a situation the written description must clearly redefine a claim term “so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term.” Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also MPEP §§ 2111.01, 2173.05(e) (citing Process Control). “To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. The specification may also include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope.” MPEP § 2111.01 (citing Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–17, and 19–23 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(i) Claim 1, line 5, introduces the term “proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request.” The term “proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request” has no ordinary and customary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art.
At the outset, the Examiner notes the Specification recites the term “proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request,” but provides no special definition in the paragraphs that recite the term “proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request.” See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6, 12, 36, 37.
Applicants argue paragraph 15 defines the term “proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request.” See Response 9.
The Examiner is unpersuaded of error. Paragraph 15 of the Specification recites, in pertinent part,
Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) is a communication protocol that can be used to discover link layer address, such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and Media Access Control (MAC) addresses. A proxy device on a network, such as an Access Point (AP), can use the proxy ARP to receive and process ARP queries such as IPv4 ARP requests, IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) address lookups, IPv6 ND duplicate address detection messages, and so on. If the destination address of an ARP query is known, the proxy device can respond directly on behalf of a Station (STA) or forward the request to the intended STA.
Spec. ¶ 15. Paragraph 15 of the Specification discloses a proxy device can use a “proxy ARP” to process IPv4 ARP requests. Paragraph 15 of the Specification, however, does not equate that the term “proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request” is an IPv4 ARP request that is processed by a proxy device.
Thus, the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the term “proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request” is (1) an ARP request processed by a proxy, (2) an ARP request authorized to act on behalf of another ARP request, (3) an ARP request that was itself proxied; or (4) something else. See MPEP 2173.05(b) (citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential).
Accordingly, “[u]ntil the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” MPEP § 2173.05(e); see also id. § 2111.01 (reciting “[i]f no reasonably clear meaning can be ascribed to the claim term after considering the specification and prior art, . . . the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the specification objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d).”).
Claim 8, line 9; and claim 15, line 7 by analogy.
(ii) Claim 1, line 7, introduces the term “proxy ARP cache.” The term “proxy ARP cache” has no ordinary and customary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicants argue paragraphs 32 and 38 defines the term “proxy ARP cache.” See Response 9.
The Examiner is unpersuaded of error. Paragraph 32 and 38 of the Specification recites, in pertinent part,
Referring back to FIG. 2, the first AP MLD 102 and/or the second AP MLD 110 can maintain the proxy ARP cache in operation 214. In example implementations, the first AP MLD 102 and/or the second AP MLD 110 can maintain the proxy ARP cache once the STA 150, and any other STAs affected by the MLO reconfiguration 202, has performed proxy ARP reconfiguration. Maintaining the proxy ARP cache in operation 214 can include removing the old address(es) the STA 150 was using to communicate with other devices (e.g., the first DS STA 132, the second DS STA 142) and adding the new address(es) the STA 150 will now use to communicate with other devices. Thus, the first AP MLD 102 and/or the second AP MLD 110 can provide proxy ARP support using the maintained proxy ARP cache.
. . .
In operation 450, a proxy ARP cache is maintained based on the proxy ARP reconfiguration. For example, the AP MLDs and/or controller update the proxy ARP cache to remove any addresses associated with the removed link that cannot be used anymore and adds any addresses associated with a new link that have been determined.
Spec. ¶¶ 32, 38.
Paragraphs 32 and 39 of the Specification disclose maintaining a proxy ARP cache, but does not provide the meaning of the term “proxy ARP cache.” Thus, the Examiner is uncertain as to whether a “proxy ARP cache” is (1) an ARP cache residing in a proxy, (2) an ARP cache authorized to act on behalf of another ARP cache, (3) an ARP cache that was itself proxied, or (4) something else. See MPEP 2173.05(b) (citing Miyazaki). Accordingly, “[u]ntil the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim 8, line 12; and claim 15, line 10 by analogy.
(iii) claim 1, line 7, “performing ARP reconfiguration” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the limitation refers to the performing the proxy ARP reconfiguration introduced in claim 1, line 7 or not.
If so, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “the performing the proxy ARP reconfiguration.” If not, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “second performing second ARP reconfiguration.”
Claim 15, line 9 by analogy.
(iv) claim 1, line 9, “the STA” lacks clear antecedent basis. Moreover, the limitation adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as whether the acronym refers to (1) station; (2) status; (3) stationary; or (4) another meaning.
(v) claim 1, line 9, “a proxy ARP request” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the limitation refers to the proxy ARP request introduced in claim 1, line 5 or not.
If so, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “[[a]] the proxy ARP request.” If not, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “a second proxy ARP request.”
Claim 8, line 12; and claim 10, line 3.
(vi) claim 2, line 1, “dropping” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the limitation refers to the dropping introduced in claim 1, line 5 or not.
If so, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “the dropping.” If not, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “second dropping.”
Claim 16, line 2 by analogy.
(vii) claim 3, line 3, “a Station (STA)” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the limitation refers to the STA introduced in claim 1, line 9 or not.
If so, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “[[a]] the Station (STA).” If not, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “a second Station (STA).”
Claim 17, line 3 by analogy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–17, and 19–23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20230421498-A1; US-20210185752-A1; US-20080195700-A1; and US-20040213234-A1.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449