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
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites ‘when execute’ which appears to be a typo of “when executed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-12 recite a “program having computer readable instructions”, with nothing in the specification specifically limiting this program/medium from being a transitory medium (i.e. such as a signal medium), which is considered non-statutory. Further, the USPTO Official Gazette from week #8 of 2010 (Feb 23, 2010), Volume 1351 page 212 specifically explains that the addition of the term "non-transitory" before the term “computer readable medium” will alleviate any issues with 35 USC 101 rejections, since the claims would no longer cover non statutory subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 of US Patent 12,101,852.
Regarding claim 1, 7, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 1
‘852 patent Claim 1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage
medium storing computer readable instructions that, when execute, enable a computer to provide execution comprising: generating a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a target channel, wherein the PPDU includes a short training field,
A method for sending a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU), the method comprising: generating the (PPDU) over a target channel, wherein the PPDU includes a short training field, the PPDU includes a short training field,
a bandwidth of the target channel is 320 MHz,
a bandwidth of the target channel is 320 MHz, and
PNG
media_image1.png
178
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
212
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
108
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
104
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
sending the PPDU over the target channel.
sending the PPDU over the target channel.
As can be seen by claim comparison, claim 1, 7 of the instant application recites a substantially similar variation of claim 1 of ‘852; thus the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct.
It has been held that the omission of an 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 Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Regarding claim 2, 8, the conflicting claim(s) are not patentably distinct from claim(s) 9 of ‘852.
Regarding claim 3, 9, the conflicting claim(s) are not patentably distinct from claim(s) 2 of ‘852.
Regarding claim 4, 10, the conflicting claim(s) are not patentably distinct from claim(s) 3 of ‘852.
Regarding claim 5, 11, the conflicting claim(s) are not patentably distinct from claim(s) 10 of ‘852.
Regarding claim 6, 12, the conflicting claim(s) are not patentably distinct from claim(s) 4 of ‘852.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-12 objected to as being allowable subject matter upon any 35 USC 101 and/or double patenting issues addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Porat et al. (US 2016/0261452) discloses short training field (STF) within wireless communications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights