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 .
Claims 1-14, and 16-21 have been examined.
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 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12127153. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 19 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12127153 in that claims 5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12127153 contains all the limitations of claims 1 and 19 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 19 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11812402 in view of KIM et al. (US 2023/0247117). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
In reference to claim 1
US 11812402 claim 8 teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the claim.
US 11812402 does not teach the frame being a multi-link probe response frame.
KIM et al. teaches a multi-link probe response frame. (par. 0289)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of US 11812402 to be a multi-link probe response frame as suggested by KIM et al. because it would the multi-link device identifier to be transported in the multi-link probe response frame.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-13, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
In reference to claim 1
The limitation "a second per-station profile element" in lines 3-4 renders the claim indefinite because the claim recites "a second per-station profile element" without reciting “a first per-station profile element” rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 12
The limitation "a second per-station profile element" in lines 3-4 renders the claim indefinite because the claim recites "a second per-station profile element" without reciting “a first per-station profile element” rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 17
The limitation "a fourth AP" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because the claim recites "a fourth AP" " without reciting “a third AP” rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 19
The limitation "a second per-station profile element" in lines 6-7 renders the claim indefinite because the claim recites "a second per-station profile element" without reciting “a first per-station profile element” rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 20
The limitation "a second per-station profile element" in lines 6-7 renders the claim indefinite because the claim recites "a second per-station profile element" without reciting “a first per-station profile element” rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claims 2, 6-11, 13, 16, 18, 21
Claims 2, 6-11, 13, 16, 18, and 21 are rejected because they depend on a rejected parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, and 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 2024/0196460 pertains to receiving MLD transmits a probe request frame to a transmitting MLD through a first link. The receiving MLD receives a probe response frame from the transmitting MLD through the first link. The transmitting MLD comprises: a first transmitting STA operating in the first link; a second transmitting STA operating in a second link; and a third transmitting STA operating in a third link. The receiving MLD comprises a first receiving STA operating in the first link. When the first receiving STA requests for information on the second and third links, the probe request frame includes link identifiers for the second and third links. When the first receiving STA requests for information on all the links, the probe request frame does not include link identifiers for all the links.
US 2024/0224348 pertains to transmitting a request frame including information indicating one or more of a first AP and a first multi-link device (MLD); and receiving a response frame responding to the request frame from a second AP, wherein the response frame includes a first multi-link (ML) element related to one or more of the first AP and the first MLD, and a second ML element related to one or more of the second AP and a second MLD.
US 2022/0159106 pertains to receiving MLD transmits a probe request frame to the transmitting MLD through a first link. The receiving MLD receives a probe response frame from the transmitting MLD through the first link. The transmitting MLD includes a first transmitting station (STA) operating in the first link and a second transmitting STA operating in a second link. The receiving MLD includes a first receiving STA operating in the first link and a second receiving STA operating in the second link. The probe request frame includes a profile field of the second receiving STA.
US 11736939 pertains to executing multi-link operations in a multi-link communications system comprises performing a single frame exchange between a first multi-link device and a second multi-link device to execute a multi-link operation for multiple links between the first and second multi-link devices using a frame transmitted on a first link among the multiple links, wherein the frame includes an element that carries other link information on at least one link of the multiple links other than the first link, wherein the frame includes per-link value information that has different values for different links of the multiple link, and wherein successful execution of the single frame exchange completes the multi-link operation for at least two links of the multiple links between the first and second multi-link devices.
US 2021/0274500 pertains to encoding a first portion of a first beacon frame or first response frame, and in response to a second AP of the AP MLD transmitting, on a second frequency band, a second beacon frame or a second probe response frame comprising a channel switch announcement element or an enhanced channel switch announcement frame, encoding a second portion of the first beacon frame or the first probe response frame, the second portion comprising the channel switch announcement element or the enhanced channel switch announcement frame. The processing circuitry is further configured to configure the first AP of the AP MLD to transmit, on a first frequency band, the first beacon frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights