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
Claims 2-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 2, Applicant is requested to change “data” at line 14 to --- optimization data -- for consistency with the claim language. The same remark applies to claims 12 and 20.
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.
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.
4. Claims 2-26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the control device” at line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The same remark applies to claim 12 and 20.
Double Patenting
5. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 2, 12 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,970. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 2, see entire claim (see claim 1 of the Patent number 12,149,970 at col.57, lined 2-21).
Regarding claim 12, see entire claim (see claim 12 of the Patent number 12,149,970 at col.58, lined 46-58).
Regarding claim 20, see entire claim (see claim 21 of the Patent number 12,149,970 at col.60, lined 5-21).
Regarding claim 2, as patented claim 1 is directed to a control device for communication with one or more other devices on the network, claim 2 is also directed to a device configured to communication with a plurality of control devices on the network performing steps described in the method of the patented claim 1, with an additional step. Thus, Applicant merely narrows the scope of patent claim 1 by adding the limitation: “wherein the optimization data comprises an identifier of each control device of the plurality of control devices, and a corresponding communication quality metric associated with at least one optimization message received at the control device on a communication link with another control device of the plurality of control devices”.
Regarding claim 12, as patented claim 12 is directed to a method, claim 12 is also directed to a method, with an additional step. Thus, Applicant merely narrows the scope of patent claim 12 by adding the limitation: “wherein the optimization data comprises an identifier of each control device of the plurality of control devices, and a corresponding communication quality metric associated with at least one optimization message received at the control device on a communication link with another control device of the plurality of control devices”.
Regarding claim 20, as patented claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, claim 20 is also directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, with an additional step. Thus, Applicant merely narrows the scope of patent claim 21 by adding the limitation: “wherein the optimization data comprises an identifier of each control device of the plurality of control devices, and a corresponding communication quality metric associated with at least one optimization message received at the control device on a communication link with another control device of the plurality of control devices”.
It has been held that a slight change in the language of the claims without affecting elements and functions is an obvious expedient if the elements perform the same function as before, therefore omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Allowable subject matter
7. Claims 3-11, 13-19 and 21-26 are rejected based on their dependency, but would be allowable if claims 2, 12 and 20 rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
8. Claims 3-11, 13-19 and 21-26 are rejected based on their dependency, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s), set forth in this Office action.
9. Claims 2, 12 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the
nonstatutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Knode (US 2025/0202603); Mehmedagic et al. (US 11,888,739)
are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147 (Duc.ho@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant adds an additional limitation to the scope of patent claim 4 by reciting “receiving, from an access point (AP), first control information related to the BSR”
Regarding claim 1, as patented claim 1 is directed to a computerized method, claim 1 is also directed to a computerized method performing steps described in the method of the patented claim 1, with an additional step. Thus, Applicant merely narrows the scope of patent claim 1 by adding the limitations
Regarding claim 1, Applicant merely broadens the scope of patent claim 8 by eliminating the limitations “an address generation module operatively coupled to the comparison module, the address generation module configured to produce an address associated with the second node from the plurality of nodes based at least on the result from the comparison module; a policy vector database module including a plurality of policy vectors, each policy vector from the plurality of policy vectors being associated with a range from a plurality of ranges” in col. 18-line 66 to col.19-line 7.
Regarding claim 1, the scope of the application claim and that of the copending claim is slightly changed due to different terms used to describe functions of some elements.
Regarding claim 1, as patent claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 1 is directed to a system performing steps described in the method claim, with additional two steps. Thus, Applicant merely narrows the scope of patent claim 1 by adding the limitations “authenticates advertisement information in each of the unique broadcast beacons received over the wireless network interface" and "determines a mean signal strength for each of the plurality of individual wireless access points".
Regarding claims 10-11 and 13, these claims have the same limitations as those of the copending Application claims 2-5, respectively.
