DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the communication filed on 10/17/2024 and the preliminary amendment filed on 11/04/2024 claims 1-20 are pending in the present application, claims 1, 6, 11, 16 are recited in independent form. The Present Application claims Priority to Foreign Application CN202010167728.9 with a filing date of 03/11/2020 is a CON of PCT/CN2021/079909 with a filing date of 03/10/2021 and CON of US Application no. 17/940,609 (now US Pat. No. 11,812,399) with a filing date of 09/08/2022 and CON of US Application no. 18/351,829 (now US Pat. No. 12,156,159) with a filing date of 07/13/2023.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification ONLY when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. Otherwise, the broadest reasonable interpretation prohibits importing limitations from the specification into the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-15 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Claims are directed to a program which makes a computer to perform a method wherein the claimed subject matter fails to fall within any of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four statutory categories of invention eligible for patent protection as: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The Examiner has determined that under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claim recites a computer program per se. The Examiner notes that the claim is drawn to a program defined by the characteristic “which makes a computer to perform a method” but is still entirely directed to the program per se. A computer program per se possesses no physical or tangible form, thus in cannot be classified as a machine or manufacture. The claim is drafted as a product rather than a series of acts or steps (method) thus failing to meet the statutory definition of a process. Per MPEP 2103.03(I) it is noted that products that do not have physical or tangible form, such as the program per se in question, when claimed as a product without a structural recitations do not fall into any statutory category and fails step 1 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility framework.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,399 in view of United States Patent Application Publication US-20210282161 to Sun et al (hereinafter D1) in view of United States Patent Application Publication US-20210168712 to Cherian et al (hereinafter D2).
The limitations for the current Application correspond to the limitations of US Pat. No. 11,812,399 (hereinafter the patent), according to the table set forth below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are found in their entirety within the bounds of the claims of the patent and/or are obvious over the art noted below. The limitations of the claims are mapped to limitations of claims 1-20 of the patent according to the mapping in the table below.
18918352
1. (Currently Amended) A sending device, comprising: at least one processor and an interface coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one processor causes the interface to perform following operations through logic circuits or execution of code instructions:
sending a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a first link, wherein the first PPDU carries a trigger frame; and
sending a second PPDU over a second link;
wherein an end time of sending the second PPDU is not earlier than a first time and not later than a second time, the first time is related to an end time of sending the first PPDU and a state turnaround time, and the second time is related to the end time of sending the first PPDU and a short interframe space (SIFS) time.
2. (Currently Amended) The sending device according to claim 1, wherein the first time satisfies the following formula: M = Ti-T2; wherein M represents the first time, Ti represents the end time of the first PPDU, T2 represents the state turnaround time.
3. (Currently Amended) The sending device according to claim 2, wherein the state turnaround time is an a RxTxTurnaroundTime.
4. (Currently Amended) The sending device according to claim 1, wherein the second time satisfies the following: the second time equals to the end time of the first PPDU plus a value, wherein the value is greater than 0 and less than the SIFS time.
5. (Currently Amended) The sending device according to claim 4, wherein the second time satisfies the following formula: N = T+(T4 - y x T3), wherein N represents the second time, Ti represents the end time of the first PPDU, T4 represents the SIFS time, Y represents a second delay coefficient, and T3 represents a slot time.
6. (Currently Amended) A receiving device, comprising: at least one processor and an interface coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one causes the interface to perform following operations through logic circuits or execution of code instructions:
receiving a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a first link, where the first PPDU carries a trigger frame; and
receiving a second PPDU over a second link;
wherein an end time of the second PPDU is not earlier than a first time and not later than a second time, the first time is related to an end time of the first PPDU and a state turnaround time, and the second time is related to the end time of the first PPDU and a short interframe space (SIFS) time.
7. (Currently Amended) The receiving device according to claim [[5]] 6, wherein the first time satisfies the following formula: M = T-T2; wherein M represents the first time, Ti represents the end time of the first PPDU, T2 represents the state turnaround time.
8. (Currently Amended) The receiving device according to claim 7, wherein the state turnaround time is an aRxTxTurnaroundTime.
9. (Currently Amended) The receiving device according to claim 6, wherein the second time satisfies the following: the second time equals to the end time of the first PPDU plus a value, wherein the value is greater than 0 and less than the SIFS time.
10. (Currently Amended) The receiving device according to claim 9, wherein the second time satisfies the following formula: N = T+(T4 - y x T3), wherein N represents the second time, Ti represents the end time of the first PPDU, T4 represents the SIFS time, y represents a second delay coefficient, and T3 represents a slot time.
11. (Original) A program which makes a computer to perform a method as the following:
sending a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a first link, wherein the first PPDU carries a trigger frame; and
sending a second PPDU over a second link;
wherein an end time of sending the second PPDU is not earlier than a first time and not later than a second time, the first time is related to an end time of sending the first PPDU and a state turnaround time, and the second time is related to the end time of sending the first PPDU and a short interframe space (SIFS) time.
12. (Original) The program according to claim 11, wherein the first time satisfies the following formula: M = Ti-T2; wherein Mi represents the first time, Ti represents the end time of the first PPDU, T2 represents the state turnaround time.
13. (Original) The program according to claim 12, wherein the state turnaround time is an aRxTxTurnaroundTime.
14. (Original) The program according to claim 11, wherein the second time satisfies the following: the second time equals to the end time of the first PPDU plus a value, wherein the value is greater than 0 and less than the SIFS time.
15. (Original) The program according to claim 14, wherein the second time satisfies the following formula: N = T+(T4 - y x T3), wherein N represents the second time, Ti represents the end time of the first PPDU, T4 represents the SIFS time, Y represents a second delay coefficient, and T3 represents a slot time.
16. (Original) A program which makes a computer to perform a method as the following:
receiving a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a first link, where the first PPDU carries a trigger frame; and
receiving a second PPDU over a second link,
wherein an end time of the second PPDU is not earlier than a first time and not later than a second time, the first time is related to an end time of the first PPDU and a state turnaround time, and the second time is related to the end time of the first PPDU and a short interframe space (SIFS) time.
17. (Original) The program according to claim 15, wherein the first time satisfies the following formula: M = Ti-T2; wherein M represents the first time, Ti represents the end time of the first PPDU, T2 represents the state turnaround time.
18. (Original) The program according to claim 17, wherein the state turnaround time is an aRxTxTurnaroundTime.
19. (Original) The program according to claim 16, wherein the second time satisfies the following: the second time equals to the end time of the first PPDU plus a value, wherein the value is greater than 0 and less than the SIFS time.
20. (Original) The program according to claim 19, wherein the second time satisfies the following formula: N = T+(T4 - y x T3), wherein N represents the second time, Ti represents the end time of the first PPDU, T4 represents the SIFS time, Y represents a second delay coefficient, and T3 represents a slot time.
US Pat. No. 11,812,399
1. A communication method, comprising:
sending, by a sending device, a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a first link, wherein the first PPDU carries a trigger frame; and
sending, by the sending device, a second PPDU over a second link,
wherein an end time of sending the second PPDU is not earlier than a first time and not later than a second time, the first time is related to an end time of sending the first PPDU and a state turnaround time, and the second time is related to the end time of sending the first PPDU and a short interframe space (SIFS) time.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first time satisfies the following formula: M=T.sub.1−T.sub.2; wherein M represents the first time, T.sub.1 represents the end time of the first PPDU, T.sub.2 represents the state turnaround time.
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the state turnaround time is an aRxTxTurnaroundTime.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the second time satisfies the following: the second time equals to the end time of the first PPDU plus a value, wherein the value is greater than 0 and less than the SIFS time.
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein the second time satisfies the following formula: N=T.sub.1+(T.sub.4−y×T.sub.3), wherein N represents the second time, T.sub.1 represents the end time of the first PPDU, T.sub.4 represents the SIFS time, Y represents a second delay coefficient, and T.sub.3 represents a slot time.
6. A communication method, comprising:
receiving, by a receiving device, a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a first link, where the first PPDU carries a trigger frame; and
receiving, by the receiving device, a second PPDU over a second link,
wherein an end time of the second PPDU is not earlier than a first time and not later than a second time, the first time is related to an end time of the first PPDU and a state turnaround time, and the second time is related to the end time of the first PPDU and a short interframe space (SIFS) time.
7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the first time satisfies the following formula: M=T.sub.1−T.sub.2; wherein M represents the first time, T.sub.1 represents the end time of the first PPDU, T.sub.2 represents the state turnaround time.
10. The method according to claim 6, wherein the state turnaround time is an aRxTxTurnaroundTime.
8. The method according to claim 6, wherein the second time satisfies the following: the second time equals to the end time of the first PPDU plus a value, wherein the value is greater than 0 and less than the SIFS time.
9. The method according to claim 8, wherein the second time satisfies the following formula: N=T.sub.1+(T.sub.4−y×T.sub.3), wherein N represents the second time, T.sub.1 represents the end time of the first PPDU, T.sub.4 represents the SIFS time, Y represents a second delay coefficient, and T.sub.3 represents a slot time.
11. A sending device, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the device to perform following operations:
sending a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a first link, wherein the first PPDU carries a trigger frame; and
sending a second PPDU over a second link,
wherein an end time of sending the second PPDU is not earlier than a first time and not later than a second time, the first time is related to an end time of sending the first PPDU and a state turnaround time, and the second time is related to the end time of sending the first PPDU and a short interframe space (SIFS) time.
12. The sending device according to claim 11, wherein the first time satisfies the following formula: M=T.sub.1−T.sub.2; wherein M represents the first time, T.sub.1 represents the end time of the first PPDU, T.sub.2 represents the state turnaround time.
15. The sending device according to claim 11, wherein the state turnaround time is an aRxTxTurnaroundTime.
13. The sending device according to claim 11, wherein the second time satisfies the following: the second time equals to the end time of the first PPDU plus a value, wherein the value is greater than 0 and less than the SIFS time.
14. The sending device according to claim 13, wherein the second time satisfies the following formula: N=T.sub.1+(T.sub.4−y×T.sub.3), wherein N represents the second time, T.sub.1 represents the end time of the first PPDU, T.sub.4 represents the SIFS time, Y represents a second delay coefficient, and T.sub.3 represents a slot time.
16. A receiving device, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the device to perform following operations:
receiving a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over a first link, where the first PPDU carries a trigger frame; and
receiving a second PPDU over a second link,
wherein an end time of the second PPDU is not earlier than a first time and not later than a second time, the first time is related to an end time of the first PPDU and a state turnaround time, and the second time is related to the end time of the first PPDU and a short interframe space (SIFS) time.
17. The receiving device according to claim 16, wherein the first time satisfies the following formula: M=T.sub.1−T.sub.2; wherein M represents the first time, T.sub.1 represents the end time of the first PPDU, T.sub.2 represents the state turnaround time.
20. The receiving device according to claim 16, wherein the state turnaround time is an aRxTxTurnaroundTime.
18. The receiving device according to claim 16, wherein the second time satisfies the following: the second time equals to the end time of the first PPDU plus a value, wherein the value is greater than 0 and less than the SIFS time.
19. The receiving device according to claim 18, wherein the second time satisfies the following formula: N=T.sub.1+(T.sub.4−y×T.sub.3), wherein N represents the second time, T.sub.1 represents the end time of the first PPDU, T.sub.4 represents the SIFS time, Y represents a second delay coefficient, and T.sub.3 represents a slot time.
Difference between the current application and the patent is largely in the embodiment wherein the device executing the method is an obvious modification
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
No differences
No differences
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
No differences
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
No differences
No differences
No differences
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
No differences
No differences
No differences
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
Little difference which is only reflective of the embodiment
It is noted that the sections of the column US PAT No. 11,812,399 correspond to the current application according to the table above, wherein the corresponding limitations are aligned along the horizontal axis. The Examiner notes the differences in the claims of the present Application of current application with respect to the patent are obvious from the patent. Additionally, the differences are clearly obvious from the disclosure at least from United States Patent Application Publication US-20210282161 to Sun et al (hereinafter D1) in view of United States Patent Application Publication US-20210168712 to Cherian et al (hereinafter D2). d1 discloses AP coordination scenario in which there are multiple APs and the multiple APs can share TXOP with each other (see d1 para. 0080-0083) wherein D1 provides descriptions of terminologies such as time intervals, backoff mechanism, TXOP, contention window, access category, PPDU. D2 also describes AP coordination scenario in which there are multiple APs (see d2 para. 0201) which teaches a start time of coordinated access window. Both D1 and D2 describe AP coordination scenario of multiple APs, and the timing relationship discussed in these references are between the links from different APs.
Therefore, the differences between the current application and the patent are obvious at least from d1, d2, in the sections noted above. As a result, claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,399.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached on 5712723965. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NATHAN S TAYLOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights