DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s submission received on 09/26/2024.
2. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Foreign Priority/Domestic benefit
There is no claim to foreign priority according to the application data sheet and filing receipt.
Domestic benefit is claimed with regards to CON of 18/213,101 filed 06/22/2023; 18/213,101 is a CON of 18/318,334 filed 05/16/2023; 18/318,334 is a CON of 18/079,593 filed 12/12/2022; 18/079,593 is a CON of 17/030,948 filed 09/24/2020; 17/030,948 is a CON of 16/487,959 filed 08/22/2019; 16/487,959 claims benefit to 371 of PCT/US2017/039850 filed 06/29/2017; PCT/US2017/039850 claims benefit to provisional application 62/464,672 filed 02/28/2017.
Oath/Declaration
1. The applicant’s oath/declaration filed on 09/26/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements filed on 11/13/2024; 11/24/2024; 12/26/2024; 03/09/2025 and 06/27/2025 are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
1. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 09/26/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application (claims 17 – 20) are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 165, 470. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 552, 680. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 166, 543. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 301, 314. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 301, 313. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 - 10, 12, 16 - 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oteri et al. (US 2019/0140730 A1) in view to what is known to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Oteri discloses: An apparatus comprising:
memory circuitry; (figure 1b, label 132) and
a processor (Figure 1b, label 118) configured to cause a first Enhanced Directional Multi-Gigabit (EDMG) wireless communication station (STA) [¶ 0207: the station has the capability of handling EDMG frames, hence, the stations are EDMG stations] to:
process a control trailer of a [¶ 0207: a set up frame is sent from one EDMG station to the next which can set up communication as SU-MIMO, the element field is synonymous to the trailer of the CTS frame]
configure antennas of the first EDMG STA to receive the SU-MIMO transmission from the second EDMG STA after the [¶ 0211: at the same time the element field can configure the number of transmit and receive antennas. It is quite obvious after the processing of the management/control frame or setup frame in ¶ 0207, the indicated number of antennas will be configured].
Oteri discloses every aspect of claim 1, except a CTS frame being used. It is well known in the art RTS, CTS, grants etc., are control frames well known in the art. ¶ 0207 of Oteri states that various “control frames” can carry such capabilities, and the capability could have been SU-MIMO to be set up (¶ 0207) and number of configured antennas (¶ 0211), substituting CTRS as being the control frame would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oteri’s system. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to apply a known technique recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art [KSR at 1396].
Claims 10 and 17 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3, Oteri further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control trailer of the CTS frame is to indicate an antenna configuration for the SU-MIMO transmission. [¶ 0211].
Claims 12 and 19 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 7, Oteri further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the CTS frame comprises a Directional Multi-Gigabit (DMG) CTS frame. [¶ 0207].
Claim 16 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 7.
Claim 8, Oteri further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1 comprising a radio to receive the CTS frame and the SU-MIMO transmission from the second EDMG STA. [¶ 0207].
Claim 9, Oteri further discloses: The apparatus of claim 8 comprising one or more antennas connected to the radio, and another processor to execute instructions of an operating system. [see figure 12D and 1B in view of ¶ 0211].
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 16 – 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel (SU-MIMO and MU-MIMO link access, IEEE 802.11-16/0078-00-00, published 01/18/2016, a year before the effective filing date of this application) in view to what is known to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Intel discloses: An apparatus comprising:
memory circuitry; and
a processor configured to cause a first Enhanced Directional Multi-Gigabit (EDMG) wireless communication station (STA) [see page 12 for a transmitting and receiving EDMG station. Although not explicitly disclosed by Intel, a memory and processor must be present with regards to the EDMG stations to carry out the steps that follows] to:
process a[see page/slide 12: Both stations are EDMG, whereby one station send a MIMO setup frame to another, the set-up frame can be CTS as seen on slide 6. Slide 2, states: “indicate to the receiver that they will be the recipient of an SU-MIMO Tx and that they have to set its Rx Antennas ready for SU-MIMO”. Also see slide 5: “Indicate to the destination STAs that they will be addressed by a SU-MIMO (single SISO/MIMO or number of spatial streams/antennas)]
configure antennas of the first EDMG STA to receive the SU-MIMO transmission from the second EDMG STA after [see slide 2: “indicate to the receiver that they will be the recipient of an SU-MIMO Tx and that they have to set its Rx Antennas ready for SU-MIMO.” The setup frame can be CTS as seen on slide 6. It is quite obvious after the processing of the CTS/setup frame, the indicated number of antennas will be configured. Also see slide 5: “Indicate to the destination STAs that they will be addressed by a SU-MIMO (single SISO/MIMO or number of spatial streams/antennas)”]
Intel discloses every aspect of claim 1, except a CTS trailer being used. It is well known in the art control information can be sent in any part of the frame, slide 5 provides a picture of the setup up frame. The setup frame can be CTS (slide 6). Placing the control information (not the header) in other part of the CTS/Setup frame (trailer) depicted on slide 5 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Such assertion can be seen in the reference of Eitan et al. (US 2017/0223741 A1), see ¶ 0054. ¶ 0053 deals with IEEE 802.11ay which is the standard for EDMG stations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Intel’s system. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to apply a known technique recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art [KSR at 1396].
Claims 10 and 17 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3, Intel further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control trailer of the CTS frame is to indicate an antenna configuration for the SU-MIMO transmission. [see slide 5: “Indicate to the destination STAs that they will be addressed by a SU-MIMO (single SISO/MIMO or number of spatial streams/antennas”. The setup frame can be CTS as seen on slide 6].
Claims 12 and 19 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 7, Intel further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the CTS frame comprises a Directional Multi-Gigabit (DMG) CTS frame. [see page 12 for a transmitting and receiving EDMG station. The setup frame can be CTS as seen on slide 6]
Claim 16 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights