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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/24 and 5/12/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the-and-similar analysis applies to the dependent claims comprising the same limitations.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the-and-similar analysis applies to the dependent claims comprising the same limitations.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the-and-similar analysis applies to the dependent claims comprising the same limitations.
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the-and-similar analysis applies to the dependent claims comprising the same limitations.
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the-and-similar analysis applies to the dependent claims comprising the same limitations.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method of sending a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 8 of the instant application is directed to an apparatus comprising structural elements arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method of sending a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 8 of the instant application is directed to an apparatus comprising structural elements arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method of sending a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 8 of the instant application is directed to an apparatus comprising structural elements arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method of sending a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 8 of the instant application is directed to an apparatus comprising structural elements arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method of sending a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 8 of the instant application is directed to an apparatus comprising structural elements arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method of sending a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 8 of the instant application is directed to an apparatus comprising structural elements arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method of sending a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 8 of the instant application is directed to an apparatus comprising structural elements arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent is directed to “A feedback information sending method, comprising: … receiving a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 15 of the instant application is directed to an nontransitory computer readable medium storing the method/algorithm arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent is directed to “A feedback information sending method, comprising: … receiving a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 15 of the instant application is directed to an nontransitory computer readable medium storing the method/algorithm arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent is directed to “A feedback information sending method, comprising: … receiving a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 15 of the instant application is directed to an nontransitory computer readable medium storing the method/algorithm arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent is directed to “A feedback information sending method, comprising: … receiving a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 15 of the instant application is directed to an nontransitory computer readable medium storing the method/algorithm arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent is directed to “A feedback information sending method, comprising: … receiving a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 15 of the instant application is directed to an nontransitory computer readable medium storing the method/algorithm arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent is directed to “A feedback information sending method, comprising: … receiving a negative acknowledgement to a first communication apparatus…., claim 15 of the instant application is directed to an nontransitory computer readable medium storing the method/algorithm arranged to perform those exact steps or to result in that method. A claim to a device structurally matching the limitations required to practice a method is an obvious variation of that method. Therefore, the apparatus claims do not recite a patentably distinct invention over the patented method.
Reasons for Allowability Over Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In the Examiner's best judgement the best prior art found during prosecution with respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to, either singularly or in combination, to anticipate or render the claim features obvious, particularly the combination of features of the Independent Claims. The references used, fail to singularly or in combination, to anticipate and render obvious the inventive concept identified by the specific claim features of the inventive concept claims. Specifically, wherein the capability information indicates a duration required by the second communications apparatus to feed back to the first communications apparatus whether an MPDU to which retransmitted data belongs is correctly received; and the second PPDU comprises a second MPDU and an additional part, the second PPDU retransmits, by using hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ), data that is in the first MPDU and that is not correctly received, and a sum of a duration of the additional part and a short inter-frame space (SIFS) that is greater than the duration indicated by the capability information.
The examiner identifies, as the best prior art of record, the following documents: a. U.S. Pre-Grant Publ'n. No. 2022/0060291 (published 24 Feb. 2022) [hereinafter Yang] teaches a second node may transmit a NACK (negative acknowledgement) to a first node in a PPDU indicating a portion of MPDU was not received. In response, the first node may transmit a PPDU to the second node, the PPDU may include indication information. (See figure 18)
However, Yang does not teach wherein the capability information indicates a duration required by the second communications apparatus to feed back to the first communications apparatus whether an MPDU to which retransmitted data belongs is correctly received; and the second PPDU comprises a second MPDU and an additional part, the second PPDU retransmits, by using hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ), data that is in the first MPDU and that is not correctly received, and a sum of a duration of the additional part and a short inter-frame space (SIFS) that is greater than the duration indicated by the capability information.
b. U.S. Pre-Grant Publ'n. No. 2020/0052832 (published 13 Feb. 2020) [hereinafter Tian] teaches a network device may receive a HARQ feedback message including a NACK. In response the device may determine a feedback duration for retransmission of any part of the MPDU that was not received, before responding to the NACK with a PPDU. However, Tian does not teach wherein the capability information indicates a duration required by the second communications apparatus to feed back to the first communications apparatus whether an MPDU to which retransmitted data belongs is correctly received; and the second PPDU comprises a second MPDU and an additional part, the second PPDU retransmits, by using hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ), data that is in the first MPDU and that is not correctly received, and a sum of a duration of the additional part and a short inter-frame space (SIFS) that is greater than the duration indicated by the capability information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
July 21, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights