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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 10/17/2024. Claims 17-29 are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/673,366, filed on August 06, 2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/17/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been considered and placed in the application file.
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 17-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,248. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Instant Application Claim 17 Claims
‘248 Patent Claim 1 Claims
A wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor,
A wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor,
wherein the processor performs respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band, and performs, by using the transceiver, transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel,
wherein the processor performs respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band, and performs, by using the transceiver, transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel is a contention procedure based on a random backoff within a contention window.
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel are contention procedure
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘248 patent anticipates all recitations of claim 17 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 17 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 1 of the ‘248 patent. There are differences between the claims depicted in the bolded words and the strike-through words and they are deemed obvious as followings. Pertaining the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. It is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims in a later-filed patent application from reading claims in an early-filed patent application issued into a patent using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. A reason for doing so is to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention. Pertaining the difference depicted in the strike-through words, it appears to be broadening claim by omitting limitations. Nevertheless, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference whose function is not needed would be an obvious variation. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent.
The dependent claims 18-22 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over dependent claims 2-6 of '248 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Instant Application Claim 23 Claims
‘248 Patent Claim 7 Claims
A method of operating a wireless communication terminal, the method comprising:
A method of operating a wireless communication terminal, the method comprising:
performing respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band; and
performing respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band; and
performing transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel,
performing transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel is a contention procedure based on a random backoff within a contention window.
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel is a contention procedure based on a random backoff.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 7 of the ‘248 patent anticipates all recitations of claim 23 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 23 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 7 of the ‘248 patent. There is a difference between the claims depicted in the bolded words and it is deemed obvious as following. Pertaining the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. And it is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims in a later-filed patent application from reading claims in an early-filed patent application issued into a patent using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. A reason for doing so is to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention. Moreover, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent.
The dependent claims 24-28 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over dependent claims 8-12 of '248 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Instant Application Claim 29 Claims
‘248 Patent Claim 13 Claims
A wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor, wherein the processor receives a transmission, wherein the transmission is transmitted based on a channel access method, wherein the channel access method comprising:
A wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor, wherein the processor receives a transmission, wherein the transmission is transmitted based on a channel access method, wherein the channel access method comprising:
performing respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band; and
performing respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band; and
performing transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel,
performing transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other,
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel is a contention procedure based on a random backoff within a contention window.
wherein the contention procedure in the first channel is a contention procedure based on a random backoff.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 13 of the ‘248 patent anticipates all recitations of claim 29 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 29 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 13 of the ‘248 patent. There is a difference between the claims depicted in the bolded words and it is deemed obvious as following. Pertaining the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. And it is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims in a later-filed patent application from reading claims in an early-filed patent application issued into a patent using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. A reason for doing so is to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention. Moreover, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent.
Claims 17-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,659,591. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Instant Application Claim 17 Claims
‘591 Patent Claim 3 Claims
A wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor,
A wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor,
wherein the processor performs respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band, and performs, by using the transceiver, transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel, wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other, wherein the contention procedure in the first channel is a contention procedure based on a random backoff within a contention window.
wherein the processor performs respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band, and performs, by using the transceiver, transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel, wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other, wherein the processor starts the contention procedure of the first channel to a back-off counter of the contention procedure of the first channel.
Rationale:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 3 of the ‘591 patent encompasses all limitations of claim 17 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 17 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations of those in claim 3 of the ‘591 patent. There are differences between the claims depicted in the bolded words and the strike-through words and they are deemed obvious as followings. Pertaining the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording but meaning is the same. It is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims in a later-filed patent application using different wording but meaning is the same from reading claims in an earlier-filed patent application issued into a patent. A motivation for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention. Moreover and pertaining the difference depicted in the strike-through words, it appears to be broadening claim by omitting limitations. Nevertheless, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be an obvious variation.
The dependent claims 18-22 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over dependent claims 2-6, respectively of '591 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Group claims 23-28 and 29 are deemed obvious over group claims 7-12 and 13 of the ‘591 patent for the same rationales applied to group claims 17-22 as above discussed.
Claims 17-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,089,473. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Instant Application Claim 17 Claims
‘473 Patent Claim 3 Claims
A wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor,
A wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor,
wherein the processor performs respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels in an unlicensed band, and performs, by using the transceiver, transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel, wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other, wherein the contention procedure in the first channel is a contention procedures based on a random backoff within a contention window.
wherein the processor performs respective contention procedures in a plurality of channels, and performs, by using the transceiver, transmission in a first channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the first channel and transmission in a second channel of the plurality of channels based on a contention procedure in the second channel, wherein the contention procedure in the first channel and the contention procedure in the second channel are performed independently of each other, wherein the processor starts the contention procedure of the first channel to a back-off counter of the contention procedure of the first channel, as a value of a back-off counter of the contention procedure of the second channel.
Rationale:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 3 of the ‘473 patent encompasses all limitations of claim 17 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 17 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations of those in claim 3 of the ‘473 patent. There are differences between the claims depicted in the bolded words and the strike-through words and they are deemed obvious as followings. Pertaining the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording but meaning is the same. It is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims in a later-filed patent application using different wording but meaning is the same from reading claims in an earlier-filed patent application issued into a patent. A motivation for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention. Moreover and pertaining the difference depicted in the strike-through words, it appears to be broadening claim by omitting limitations. Nevertheless, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be an obvious variation.
The dependent claims 18-22 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over dependent claims 2-6, respectively of '473 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Group claims 23-28 and 29 are deemed obvious over group claims 7-12 and 1 of the ‘473 patent for the same rationales applied to group claims 17-22 as above discussed.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is noted that claims 17-29 claim variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claims 1-12 of ‘248 patent, claims 1-13 of ‘591 patent and in claims 1-12 of ‘473 patent. Should a response to this Office Action overcome all of the above raised issues, the instant application shall be placed in a favorable condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Viger et al. (US 10,448,398).
Ghosh (US 2016/0014807).
Park et al. (US 2011/0317674).
Lee et al. (US 8,040,913).
Ginzburg (US 2005/0064817).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights