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
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 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,533,133. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,533,133 encompasses the limitations of claims 1 and 15 of instant application. Moreover, omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its functions is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements performs the same function as before In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969).
Re Claims 1 and 15 of instant application, the omitted limitation(s) in claims 1 and 3 include ‘the user info field’ while the remaining éléments performs the same function as before.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7,15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAI et al PG PUB 2024/0284254 in view of LOU et al PG PUB 2024/0333465.
Re Claims 1, 15 and 19, IWAI et al teaches in figure 11 teaches a Terminal 200 (STA comprising a transceiver, processor) receiving a Trigger Frame S102 from a AP 100 (AP comprising a transceiver and processor) wherein the Trigger Frame includes a common info field [0106]; corresponding to the trigger frame transmitting S104 TB PPDU to the AP [0108]; the trigger frame indicates A-PPDU [0152], See figure 2 teaches configurable other subfields included in the common info field.
IWAI et al fails to explicitly teach the A-PPDU related subfield in the common info field. However, LOU et al teaches the common info field in figure 29, the common info field includes A-PPDU related subfield indicating a subchannel and TB PPDU type [0198]. By combining the teachings, the common info field in IWAI et al can be modified to include the A-PPDU related subfield to be adaptive to different subchannels and TB PPDU types. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to be adaptive to different subchannels and TB PPDU types as indicated in the A-PPDU related subfield. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 3, IWAI et al teaches in figure 2, the B54, B55 other subfields.
Re Claim 4, IWAI et al teaches in figure 2, the B54 bit values 0 and 1 to indicate a P160 (primary 160MHz channel) is allocated to HE and EHT.
Re Claim 5, IWAI et al teaches in figure 2, the B55 values 0 and 1 to indicate Special User Info field Present such as a non-legacy variant [0044].
Re Claims 6, 7, LOU et al teaches in figure 29, when the B54 value 1 and B55 are value 1, the New subfield (A-PPDU) is 0 to correspond to TB PPDU type of HE; when the B54 value 0 and B55 value are 0, the New subfield (A-PPDU) is 0 to corresponds to TB PPDU type of EHT. However, LOU et al teaches A-PPDU related subfield is used to indicate the TB PPDU type [0198]. The new subfield in figure 29 can be modified to map value of the field to indicate the TB PPDU type accordingly, i.e., HE or EHT. Hence, it would have been an obvious expedient to have mapped the new subfield with B54 value to match HE/EHT indication.
Claims 2, 9, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAI et al PG PUB 2024/0284254 in view of LOU et al PG PUB 2024/0333465 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of SHELLHAMMER et al PG PUB 2022/0030572.
Re Claims 2, 9, LOU et al teaches in figure 29, B54 is set to 0 and B55 is set to 1. IWAL et al in view of LOU et al fails to explicitly teach “A-PPDU related subfield indicating an A-PPDU containing or not containing a non-legacy TB PPDU”.
However, SHELLHAMMER et al teaches one or more bits in the common information field indicating whether the format of the PPDU is one a legacy PPDU format or a non-legacy PPDU format [0009]. By combining the teaching, the Reserved Subfield B63 in the Common Info field in IWAI et al can be modified to indicate the legacy PPDU format or the non-legacy PPDU format wherein based on the bit value, the A-PPDU related subfield can indicate whether the A-PPDU contains the non-legacy TB-PPDU or not. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to be adaptive to different PPDU formats. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 12, 13, IWAI et al teaches in figure 2, B55, Special User Info field Present in the trigger frame. In view of SHELLHAMMER et al, this field can be modified to indicate a non-legacy variant wherein figure 29 of LOU et al teaches related other fields.
Re Claim 14, IWAI et al teaches in figure 4, reserved subfield B37 and B39 in the user info field. In view of SHELLHAMMER et al, this subfield can be modified to indicate the non-legacy TB-PPDU.
Claims 8, 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 10, Prior art fails to when B54 is 1 and B55 is 0, the New subfield (A-PPDU) is set to 1 value, the one or more TB PPDUs correspond to a HE and a non-legacy TB PPDUs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights