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 .
DETAILED 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 1, 2, 4-11, 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12557145 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim(s) 1 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim(s) 1 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 2 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1.
Claim 4 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1.
Claim 5 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2.
Claim 6 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 3.
Claim 7 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 4.
Claim 8 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5.
Claim 9 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6.
Claim(s) 10 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim(s) 7 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 11 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7.
Claim 13 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7.
Claim 14 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8.
Claim 15 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 9.
Claim 16 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 10.
Claim 17 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 11.
Claim 18 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 12.
Claim(s) 19 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim(s) and/or is substantively derivable from claim 1 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 20 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 10.
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) 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220141770 A1 to Ahn; Woojin et al. in view of US 20230103061 A1 to Shafin; Rubayet et al.
Re: Claim(s) 1, 10, 19
Ahn discloses a communication method (Figs. 21 and 22),
comprising: performing, by a first device
the first operation being used to cause a first station (STA) including a TWT element. The TWT element may include TWT parameter information to be used by the wireless communication terminal … the TWT configuration frame transmitted by the base wireless communication terminal may include TWT parameter information to be used by the base wireless communication terminal. 0198 - The wireless communication terminal can reduce unnecessary power consumption by using the TWT operation. For example, when the wireless communication terminal configured with at least one TWT service period operates in the PS mode, the wireless communication terminal may be in a PCR doze state in a period other than the TWT service period. In addition, the wireless communication terminal may operate in the PCR awake state in the TWT service period to transmit and receive data with the base wireless communication terminal. 0200 - the TWT element may include a Target Wake Time field. The TWT service period may be determined based on the TSF time point indicated by the Target Wake Time field. For example, when the wireless communication terminal that completes the TWT negotiation procedure is operating in the PS mode, the wireless communication terminal may operate in the PCR doze state until the TSF time point indicated by the Target Wake Time field value. In addition, the wireless communication terminal may maintain the PCR awake state for a preconfigured period from at least the TSF time point indicated by the Target Wake Time field value. In this case, a period preconfigured from the TSF time point indicated by the Target Wake Time field value may be referred to as a TWT service period. Also, the preconfigured period may be a period indicated by the Nominal TWT Wake duration field included in the TWT element. The wireless communication terminal and the base wireless communication terminal may exchange data with each other during the TWT service period. 0201 - the preconfigured time may be from a time point at which the immediately preceding service period ends until the TWT service period ends. The Examiner notes that the terminal is configured for a TWT SP and that said configuration includes a TWT element comprising a wake time and duration. The time can be configured to be any time after the preceding TWP SP ends until the end of the next TWT SP. This would mean that the range given would be inclusive of a time that is prior to the next TWT SP and thus would be a conceivable option to ensure that the terminal is awake for the next TWT SP).,
wherein the first STA is an r-TWT scheduled station corresponding to the first r-TWT SP (See Id.).
Ahn does/do not appear to explicitly disclose that the first device is a multi-link device (MLD) and that the first station is affiliated with a non-access point (non-AP) MLD.
However, attention is directed to Shafin which discloses said limitation (Abstract - Methods and apparatuses for facilitating the coexistence of enhanced multi-link single radio (EMLSR) operation with target wake time (TWT) operation in a wireless local area network. A non-access point (AP) MLD comprises STAs, each comprising a transceiver that forms a link with a corresponding AP of an AP MLD, and a processor. A restricted TWT (R-TWT) schedule is established on a first link, and a first STA on that link is a member of an R-TWT service period (SP) on that link).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ahn invention by employing the teaching as taught by Shafin to provide the ability to apply the Ahn invention to a scheme involving multi-link devices which implements a similar scheme. The motivation for the combination is given by Shafin (0002).
Ahn further discloses a device comprising a processor and memory (Figs. 3 and 4) and Shafin further discloses an MLD comprising the same (Figs. 2A and 2B) as required by claims 10 and 19.
Re: Claim(s) 2, 11, 20
Ahn in view of Shafin discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Ahn does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the non-AP MLD operates in an enhanced multi-link single radio (EMLSR) mode, and the first STA is a station on an EMLSR link; or the non-AP MLD operates in an enhanced multi-link multi-radio (EMLMR) mode, and the first STA is a station on an EMLMR link.
However, further attention is directed to Shafin which discloses said limitation (Abstract - Methods and apparatuses for facilitating the coexistence of enhanced multi-link single radio (EMLSR) operation with target wake time (TWT) operation in a wireless local area network. A non-access point (AP) MLD comprises STAs, each comprising a transceiver that forms a link with a corresponding AP of an AP MLD, and a processor. A restricted TWT (R-TWT) schedule is established on a first link, and a first STA on that link is a member of an R-TWT service period (SP) on that link).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ahn invention by employing the teaching as taught by Shafin to provide the ability to apply the Ahn invention to a scheme involving multi-link devices which implements a similar scheme. The motivation for the combination is given by Shafin (0002).
Re: Claim(s) 7, 16
Ahn in view of Shafin discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Ahn does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein in a case where the non-AP MLD and an AP MLD support an EMLSR mode, and the non-AP MLD operates in the EMLSR mode on an EMLSR link, the first STA of the non-AP MLD on the EMLSR link establishes a r-TWT with a first AP associated with the AP MLD, and the first STA is the r-TWT scheduled station of a specific r-TWT SP,
However, further attention is directed to Shafin which discloses said limitation (Abstract - Methods and apparatuses for facilitating the coexistence of enhanced multi-link single radio (EMLSR) operation with target wake time (TWT) operation in a wireless local area network. A non-access point (AP) MLD comprises STAs, each comprising a transceiver that forms a link with a corresponding AP of an AP MLD, and a processor. A restricted TWT (R-TWT) schedule is established on a first link, and a first STA on that link is a member of an R-TWT service period (SP) on that link).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ahn invention by employing the teaching as taught by Shafin to provide the ability to apply the Ahn invention to a scheme involving multi-link devices which implements a similar scheme. The motivation for the combination is given by Shafin (0002).
Ahn further discloses a need to ensure that the first STA is in the listening operation state before a start of the r-TWT SP (see as analyzed in the rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 EST.
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 on 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights