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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2024 has been considered and placed on record.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, the acronym “non-AP” should be spelled out in the claim when it is first mentioned. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, the acronym “non-AP” should be spelled out in the claim when it is first mentioned. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the acronym “non-AP” should be spelled out in the claim when it is first mentioned. 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 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, 5-9, 11-12, 14-17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-10, 12, 13, 15, 17-19 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/870439 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The subject matter indicated in claim 1 of the instant application is taught in claim 1 of the reference application, however, the phrase such as ‘basic beamforming training (BBT) announcement frame’ is replaced by ‘trigger discovery frame’ in the reference application. The instant application specification uses BBT and trigger discovery frame interchangeably, therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify the reference application claim 1 to teach BBT announcement frame, thereby, allowing to communicate with the first station (STA) efficiently.
All of the subject matter of claim 2 of the instant application is taught by claim 2 of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 5 of the instant application is taught by claim 6 of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 6 of the instant application is taught by claim 7of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 7 of the instant application is taught by claim 8 of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 8 of the instant application is taught by claim 9 of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 9 of the instant application is taught by claim 10 of the reference application.
The subject matter indicated in claim 11 of the instant application is taught in claim 12 of the reference application, however, the phrase such as ‘basic beamforming training (BBT) announcement frame’ is replaced by ‘trigger discovery frame’ in the reference application. The instant application specification uses BBT and trigger discovery frame interchangeably, therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify the reference application claim 12 to teach BBT announcement frame, thereby, allowing to communicate with the first station (STA) efficiently.
All of the subject matter of claim 12 of the instant application is taught by claim 13 of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 14 of the instant application is taught by claim 15 of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 15 of the instant application is taught by claim 17 of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 16 of the instant application is taught by claim 18 of the reference application.
All of the subject matter of claim 17 of the instant application is taught by claim 19 of the reference application.
The subject matter indicated in claim 19 of the instant application is taught in claim 21 of the reference application, however, the phrase such as ‘basic beamforming training (BBT) announcement frame’ is replaced by ‘trigger discovery frame’ in the reference application. The instant application specification uses BBT and trigger discovery frame interchangeably, therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify the reference application claim 21 to teach BBT announcement frame, thereby, allowing to communicate with the first station (STA) efficiently.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Da Silva (US 2022/0158790, hereinafter, “Da Silva”, provided in the 11/28/2024 IDS).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Consider claim 1, Da Silva teaches a device (see figures 1-3, 11 and description thereof), the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage (figure 1 (124, 128)), the processing circuitry configured to: establish two or more links with a non-AP multi-link device (MLD) (see at least figure 3 (links), abstract, paras, 121-125); cause to send on a first link of the two or more links a basic beamforming training (BBT) announcement frame to a first station device (STA) in the non-AP MLD (see at least figure 3 and paras. 135-136, 145, Da Silva teaches sending on one of the links beamforming training related information, which may be on sub-7Ghz link); initiate a beamforming phase on a second link of the two or more links with a second STA in the non-AP MLD (see at least para. 138 and figure 3, Da Silva teaches initiate a beamforming phase in a second link 60 GHz link); and identify a feedback frame received from the first STA on the first link (see at least abstract, para. 325, 335 and figure 3, Da Silva teaches identifying feedback frame from first link in the sub 10 GHz).
Consider claim 19: all the limitations indicated in method claim 19 are included in apparatus claim 1, therefore, claim 19 is subjected to the same rejection applied to claim 1.
Consider claim 11: all the limitations indicated in non-transitory (see para. 330 in Da Silva) claim 11 are included in apparatus claim 1, therefore, claim 11 is subjected to the same rejection applied to claim 1.
Consider claims 2, 12 and 20, Da Silva teaches wherein the BBT announcement frame comprises an indication for beamforming to start at a predetermined time on the second link of the two or more links (see at least paras. 139-140, 150).
Consider claims 4 and 14, Da Silva teaches initiating the beamforming phase comprises
sending one or more frames in various antenna sectors (see at least claims 17 and 18, where Da Silva teaches the feedback frame can be send via one or more antennas).
Consider claims 5 and 15, Da Silva teaches wherein the feedback frame comprises an indication of a best transmit and receive (TX/RX) sector (see at least paras. 186, 212 and 345).
Consider claims 6 and 16, Da Silva teaches wherein the best TX/RX sector is with the second STA on the second link (see at least para. 186-187 (‘over sub-10Ghz channel’, thus the 60 GHz link)).
Consider claims 7 and 17, Da Silva teaches wherein the first link operates on a 2.4, 5, or 6 GHz band (see at least figure 3 (links 1, 2 or 3) and description thereof).
Consider claims 8 and 18, Da Silva teaches wherein the second link operates on a 60 GHz band (see at least figure 3 (link 4) and description thereof).
Consider claim 9, Da Silva teaches a transceiver configured to transmit and receive wireless signals (see at least figures 1-3 and description thereof).
Consider claim 10, Da Silva teaches an antenna coupled to the transceiver to cause to send the BBT announcement frame (see at least paras. 135-136 and figures 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FITWI Y HAILEGIORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
FITWI Y. HAILEGIORGIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/FITWI Y HAILEGIORGIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights