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 .
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.
Priority
The instant application is the national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371 of Application No. PCT/JP2022/026722, filed 5 July 2022, having claims 1-7. In a preliminary amendment, Applicant has amended claims 1-5 and 7. Claims 1-5 and 7 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 March 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“management unit” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Words appear to be missing in lines 2-4. It is being presumed that these lines should read,
“the configuration includes a parameter for determining a start time of the second service period, and
the management unit is configured to notify the second wireless terminal apparatus”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “management unit,” recited in claim 1 and incorporated into claims 2-5, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The written description points to a management unit (item 130 in figure 3) for this functionality, but nowhere does not discuss its structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 are dependent upon claim 1 and incorporate all of its limitations and are likewise indefinite.
Claim 2 further recites the limitation "a configuration" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is the same as the previously recited “configuration.” For purposes of the prior art search, it is being presumed that they are the same.
Claim 2 further recites the limitations "the transmission standby period applied to the second wireless terminal apparatus" in lines 5-6 and "the transmission standby period applied to the first wireless terminal apparatus" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if this is the same as the previously recited “transmission standby period.” For purposes of the prior art search, it is being presumed that they are each different.
Claim 3 recites “a configuration” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is being presumed that this is the same as the previously recited configuration.
Claim 3 further recites “the start time of the first service period” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is being presumed that this should read “a start time of the first service period.”
Claims 4 recites “a priority of traffic and a traffic type” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if these are the same as the previous recited “first traffic” and “second traffic.” It is being presumed these limitations do not refer to either of those.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Application Publication No. 114080049A to Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang).
NOTE: All cited page numbers refer to the translation section of the patent document attached to this office action.
As per claim 6, Yang discloses a data reception method comprising:
managing a first service period in which a first traffic transmission opportunity is provided to a first wireless terminal apparatus in a first cycle and a second service period in which a second traffic transmission opportunity is provided to a second wireless terminal apparatus in a second cycle (multiple wireless terminals, see figures 1; different terminals have different transmission rates, i.e. cycles, see figure 2);
managing a first transmission priority based on a delay requirement condition of the first traffic and a second transmission priority based on a delay requirement condition of the second traffic (see pp. 2 and 14); and
confirming that the first transmission priority is higher than the second transmission priority (see figure 4, check for higher priority service, see p. 16).
Although Yang does not disclose “notifying the second wireless terminal apparatus of a change in a configuration related to the second service period in a case of detecting a conflict between the first service period and the second service period,” this is a contingent limitation that is not required to be shown to establish anticipation of the claimed method under its broadest reasonable interpretation. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No art could be found in which the there is a notification to the second wireless terminal apparatus of a change in a configuration related to the second service period in a case of detecting a conflict between the first service period and the second service period, as recited in claims 1 and 7. The closest art, Yang, discloses the sending of a silence time request to other terminals (see figure 4), but this request appears to be generally sent if there is a potential conflict when setting up P2P communications, rather than specifically in response to an actual conflict.
Claims 2-5 would be allowable based upon their dependence upon allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HENEGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571)270-1367. 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.
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights