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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 (Instant application 18/462) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,088,434. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application 18/830,462
US 12,088,434
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a second access point, a message from a first access point establishing a relationship between the first access point and the second access point; receiving, by the second access point, a sounding trigger broadcast by the first access point; receiving, by the second access point, a first dedicated training signal from a first station in response to the sounding trigger broadcast by the first access point without the second access point sending a sounding trigger to the first station after receiving the message from the first access point; and generating, by the second access point, channel characteristics of a channel based on the first dedicated training signal, the channel including a forward channel between the second access point and the first station.
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a second access point, a message from a first access point establishing a relationship between the first access point and the second access point; receiving, by the second access point, a sounding trigger broadcast by the first access point; receiving, by the second access point, a first dedicated training signal from a first station in response to the sounding trigger broadcast by the first access point without the second access point sending a sounding trigger to the first station after receiving the message from the first access point; and generating, by the second access point, channel characteristics of a channel based on the first dedicated training signal, the channel including a forward channel between the second access point and the first station.
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 (Instant Application 18/830,462) is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.11,552,828. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim disclose obvious variants of the pending claim as shown in the table below.
Instant Application 18/830,462
US 11,552,828
1.A method comprising: receiving, by a second access point, a message from a first access point establishing a relationship between the first access point and the second access point; receiving, by the second access point, a sounding trigger broadcast by the first access point; receiving, by the second access point, a first dedicated training signal from a first station in response to the sounding trigger broadcast by the first access point without the second access point sending a sounding trigger to the first station after receiving the message from the first access point; and generating, by the second access point, channel characteristics of a channel based on the first dedicated training signal, the channel including a forward channel between the second access point and the first station.
Difference: The applicant merely narrows the scope of the instant claim by adding “a message from a first access point establishing a relationship between the first access point and the second access point.” The remaining elements performs the same function as before.
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a second access point, a sounding trigger broadcast by a first access point, while opportunistically monitoring for triggers without coordination with the first access point; receiving, by the second access point, a first dedicated training signal from a first station in response to the sounding trigger broadcast by the first access point without the second access point sending a separate sounding trigger to the first station; and generating, by the second access point, channel characteristics of a channel based on the first dedicated training signal, the channel including a forward channel between the second access point and the first station.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nabar et al (US 8,095,097 B1) discloses determining CSI for the forward channel using sounding packet, CSI using set of training signals, beamforming calculations (col. 8, line 5 to col. 17).
Kim et al (US 8,085,871 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANDAL ELPENORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3123. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6 pm M-F.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 571 272-3182. 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.
/CANDAL ELPENORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights