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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 recites “The method of claim 19” in line 1. However, claim 19 is an apparatus claim and claim 30 is a method claim that likely should be dependent from independent claim 27. 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 19 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the patent’s claims.
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the patent’s claims.
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the patent’s claims.
Claims 22 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the patent’s claims.
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the patent’s claims.
Claims 24 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the patent’s claims.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the patent’s claims.
Claims 26 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the patent’s claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xue et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0279602 A1) describes communication with another device during Target Wake Time periods.
Xin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0322460 A1) describes communication with restricted target wake time periods of frames for real-time applications.
Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0144752 A1) describes trigger based communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights