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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18793684 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following:
- With respect to claims 1, 8, 15, the copending discloses a first station (STA) in a wireless network, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (see claim 1, lines 1-4 of copending), the processor configured to cause: establishing a peer-to-peer (P2P) link with a second STA (see claim 1, lines 5-6 of copending); transmitting, to an access point (AP), a first frame that requests the AP to assist in protecting a P2P communication between the first STA and the second STA (see claim 1, lines 7-10 of copending); receiving, from the AP, a second frame that indicates assistance that the AP is able to provide in response to the first frame (see claim 1, lines 14-16 of copending); and communicating with the second STA based on the assistance provided from the AP (see claim 1, lines 18-19 of copending).
- Regarding to claims, the Application merely broaden the scope of the copending by eliminate “wherein a first basic service set (BSS) corresponding to the first AP and a second BSS corresponding to the second AP partially overlap”. It have been held that the omission of the element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Raine, 168 USPQ 375 (bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not need would be obvious to one skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
- Regarding to claim 5, the term “the first STA is not associated with the AP and the second STA is associated with the AP” is conflicted to the claim 1, since claim 1 discloses the first STA communicate with the AP, therefore the first STA cannot be associated with the AP as claim 5. Same rejection for claims 12, 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 15, 17-18is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Sharma (Pub .No. 20150245394).
- With respect to claims 1, 8, 15, Sharma teaches a first station (STA) in a wireless network, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (e.g. Fig. 3), the processor configured to cause: establishing a peer-to-peer (P2P) link with a second STA (e.g. step s400-s401 in Fig. 4); transmitting, to an access point (AP), a first frame that requests the AP to assist in protecting a P2P communication between the first STA and the second STA (e.g. step S405 in Fig. 4); receiving, from the AP, a second frame that indicates assistance that the AP is able to provide in response to the first frame (e.g. step s411 in Fig. 4); and communicating with the second STA based on the assistance provided from the AP (e.g. s415 in Fig. 4).
- With respect to claims 3, 10, 17, Sharma teaches wherein the assistance is associated with channel access opportunity by the first STA or the second STA (see par. 23).
- With respect to claims 4, 11, 18, Sharma teaches wherein the first STA is associated with the AP and the second STA is not associated with the AP (e.g. Fig. 1 shows MT 3-2).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (Pub .No. 20150245394) in view of Hu (Pub. No. 20230239797).
- With respect to claims 2, 9, 16, Sharma fails to discloses the assistance is associated with reduction of interference to the P2P link from a basic service set (BSS) corresponding to the AP. Hu discloses the BSS corresponding to AP (see par. 75), therefore it would have been obvious to implement the BSS into the Sharma’s invention for control communication in WLAN.
- With respect to claims 6, 13, 20, Hu teaches wherein the first STA is an owner of a P2P group that includes the first STA and the second STA (see par. 74).
- With respect to claims 7, 14, Hu teaches wherein at least one of the first STA or the second STA is within the BSS (see par. 75).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights