Detail Action
This office action is a response to an application filed on 08/29/2024.
Claims 13-28 are pending for examination.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/03/2024. These drawings are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement 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 time wise 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 §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 13- 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12150075 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the application are an obvious variant of the claims of the Patent. It is clear that all the elements of the application claim 13- 28 are to be found in patent claims and recite language that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as substantially identical subject matter. The reasons for concluding that the invention defined in the independent claim 13 of application would have been an obvious variation to have modified by claim 1 of conflicting patent application, and thus, it is not patentably distinct from claims of the patent.
Instant Claim 13 of 18/820229
Conflicting Claim 1 of 12/150075 B2
13. A multi-link device (MLD) comprising multiple stations operating in multiple links comprising a first link and a second link,
1. A multi-link device (MLD) comprising multiple stations operating in multiple links comprising a first link and a second link,
wherein a processor is configured to,
transmit a frame by a first STA operating the first link, and set a Medium Sync Delay Timer to an initial value by a second STA operating the second link,
receive a frame transmitted from one of one or more stations (STAs) through a second STA operating in the second link, and
reset a Medium Sync Delay Timer, for application of a medium sync delay of the second STA, to ‘0’ based on the received frame when the frame is a specific frame,
wherein the Medium Sync Delay Timer related to an interval for limiting a transmission through the second link after a transmission of the first STA through the first link, and
wherein the medium sync delay indicates an interval for limiting data transmission through the second link after data transmission of a first STA through the first link, and
wherein the Medium Sync Delay Timer is set and starts after the second STA returns to a listening operation when the second STA lost a medium synchronization due to the transmission by the first STA.
wherein the Medium Sync Delay Timer is set and starts after the second STA returns to a listening operation when the second STA lost a medium synchronization due to the data transmission by the first STA.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13- 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights