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 ).
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
An RCE under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under § 1.114, and the fee set forth in § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to § 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on July 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received July 2, 2026 (the Response).
Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–16, and 19–23 are currently pending.
Drawings
Drawings were received on July 2, 2026. 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 [sic], 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 July 2, 2026 are in the top margin.
The Objection
The drawings received July 2, 2026 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) for including the numbering of sheets of drawings—if present— in the top margin. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(g)(reciting “Each sheet must include a top margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 1.5 cm. (5/8 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 1.0 cm. (3/8 inch)”).
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.
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, 7, and 16 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 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) claim 3, line 2, “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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to (1) overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action; and (2) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8–11, 13–15, and 19–23 allowed.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights