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 .
This is in response to amendment, filed on 2/13/2026, in which claims 1-20 are pending. The applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but fail to overcome the double patent rejection. Hence this case is made final.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/790,434 (US PUB US 20250279850 A1) in view of Yang et al (US 20240334347 A1).
The copending Application No. 18/790,434 (US PUB US 20250279850 A1) does not teach and memory coupled with the one or more processors.
Yang et al teaches memory coupled with the one or more processors(see para [0007] for….An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless STA is described. The apparatus may include a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the copending application to include memory coupled with the one or more processors in order to cause the apparatus to receive an indication to transmit an ELR wireless packet including a preamble and a data field. Such modification would facilitate the wireless communication device to individually or collectively store the wireless data packet and perform various functions or operations as to increase and preferably maximize number of satisfied users in the wireless system.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
---Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/790,434 (US PUB US 20250279850 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Independent Claim 11 (instant application) is a combination of (copending claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 11 (Instant Application), claims 1 and 3 (Co-Pending Application 18/790,434) substantially disclose the corresponding claim limitations as highlighted in the table below, respectively.
As can be seen, the slight difference is that the instant claim 11 recites “identifying, by one or more processors based at least on a target data rate and a frequency bandwidth of a channel among the one or more channels, (1) a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth”, in lieu of “identify a target data rate for transmitting data over a channel with a frequency bandwidth; based at least on the target data rate, select a forward error correction (FEC) code, a code rate, a modulation scheme, and a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth, to transmit the data within a range of the target data rate”, recited in claim 1 of the Co-Pending Application 18/790,434.
The minor difference would be obvious to one skilled in the art since each of the respective elements perform the same function. The obvious variation in the wording does not change claim scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/790,328 (instant application)
18/790,434 (CO-pending application)
1. A system for wireless communications over one or more channels,
comprising: one or more processors; and memory coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
identify, based at least on a target data rate and a frequency bandwidth of a channel among the one or more channels,
(1) a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth and
(2) a number of tones per RU to achieve the target data rate; and transmit, via a transmitter, data using one or more RUs.
1. An apparatus comprising: a transmitter and
one or more processors,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
identify a target data rate for transmitting data over a channel with a frequency bandwidth; based at least on the target data rate, select a forward error correction (FEC) code, a code rate, a modulation scheme, and a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth, to transmit the data within a range of the target data rate;
encode, by an FEC encoder, the data using the FEC code and the code rate to generate encoded data; and modulate the encoded data using the modulation scheme to generate modulated data,
and the transmitter is configured to transmit the modulated data using the number of RUs.
3. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:based at least on the target data rate, select a guard interval (GI) and a number of tones per RU, to transmit the data within a range of the target data rate.
11. A method for wireless communications over one or more channels, comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors
based at least on a target data rate and a frequency bandwidth of a channel among the one or more channels, (1) a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth
and (2) a number of tones per RU to achieve the target data rate; and transmitting, via a transmitter, data using one or more RUs.
1. An apparatus comprising: a transmitter and
one or more processors,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
identify a target data rate for transmitting data over a channel with a frequency bandwidth; based at least on the target data rate, select a forward error correction (FEC) code, a code rate, a modulation scheme,
and a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth, to transmit the data within a range of the target data rate;
encode, by an FEC encoder, the data using the FEC code and the code rate to generate encoded data; and modulate the encoded data using the modulation scheme to generate modulated data,
and the transmitter is configured to transmit the modulated data using the number of RUs.
3. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:based at least on the target data rate, select a guard interval (GI) and a number of tones per RU, to transmit the data within a range of the target data rate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patent rejection under 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d), set forth in this Office.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250279918 A1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 EMMANUEL BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3016. The examiner can normally be reached 6-9.
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, Ahn K Sam can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/EMMANUEL BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights