METHOD FOR HANDOVER BETWEEN ACCESS POINTS, AND TERMINAL EQUIPMENT

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 10/21/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 10/21/2024 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,053. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales. Instant Application Claim 1 Claims ‘053 Patent Claim 1 Claims A method, comprising: A method, comprising: performing, by terminal equipment, information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band; performing, by terminal equipment, information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band; determining, by the terminal equipment, the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP, wherein an operating frequency band of the second AP is a second frequency band; determining, by the terminal equipment, the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP, wherein an operating frequency band of the second AP is a second frequency band ; sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; receiving, by the terminal equipment, a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP; and receiving, by the terminal equipment, a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP; and establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘053 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 1 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 1 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 1 of the ‘053 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and 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. 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 2-7 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 2-8 of '053 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. Instant Application Claim 8 Claims ‘053 Patent Claim 9 Claims A terminal equipment comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions; and a transceiver, wherein the processor, the memory, and the transceiver are coupled to a bus system, wherein the transceiver is configured to receive and send messages under control of the processor, to implement communication between the terminal equipment and an access point (AP); wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions stored in the non-transitory memory, to perform operations comprising: A terminal equipment comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions; and a transceiver, wherein the processor, the memory, and the transceiver are coupled to a bus system, wherein the transceiver is configured to receive and send messages under control of the processor, to implement communication between the terminal equipment and an access point (AP); wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions stored in the non-transitory memory, to perform operations comprising: when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determining whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determining whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection with the second AP, sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection with the second AP, sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP , wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 9 of the ‘053 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 8 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 8 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 9 of the ‘053 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and 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. 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 9-14 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 10-15 of '053 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. Instant Application Claim 15 Claims ‘053 Patent Claim 16 Claims A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a terminal equipment to: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a terminal equipment to: when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determine whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determine whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection to the second AP, send, using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection to the second AP, send, using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP , wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establish the connection with the second AP. when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establish the connection with the second AP. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 16 of the ‘053 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 15 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 15 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 16 of the ‘053 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and 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. 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 16-20 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 17-18 of '053 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,558,792. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales. Instant Application Claim 1 Claims ‘792 Patent Claim 1 Claims A method, comprising: A method, comprising: performing, by terminal equipment, information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band; when terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determining, by the terminal equipment, the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP, wherein an operating frequency band of the second AP is a second frequency band; determining, by the terminal equipment, the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP, wherein an operating frequency band of the second AP is a second frequency band; sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP , wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and receiving, by the terminal equipment, a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP; and when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘792 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 1 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 1 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 1 of the ‘792 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and the bolded words. The differences are deemed obvious as follows. Pertaining to 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. 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. Additionally, and pertaining to the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording, but meaning is similar or the same. It is 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 the same. A motivation for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclosed invention. The dependent claims 2-7 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 2-7 of '792 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. Instant Application Claim 8 Claims ‘792 Patent Claim 8 Claims A terminal equipment comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions; and a transceiver, wherein the processor, the memory, and the transceiver are coupled to a bus system, wherein the transceiver is configured to receive and send messages under control of the processor, to implement communication between the terminal equipment and an access point (AP); wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions stored in the non-transitory memory, to perform operations comprising: A terminal equipment comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions; and a transceiver, wherein the processor, the memory, and the transceiver are coupled to a bus system, wherein the transceiver is configured to receive and send messages under control of the processor, to implement communication between the terminal equipment and an access point (AP); wherein the processor is configured to executes the instructions stored in the memory, to perform operations comprising: when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determining whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determining whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection with the second AP, sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection with the second AP, sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP , wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 8 of the ‘792 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 8 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 8 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 8 of the ‘792 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and the bolded words. The differences are deemed obvious as follows. Pertaining to 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. 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. Additionally, and pertaining to the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording, but meaning is similar or the same. It is 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 the same. A motivation for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclosed invention. The dependent claims 9-14 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 9-14 of '792 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. Instant Application Claim 15 Claims ‘792 Patent Claim 15 Claims A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a terminal equipment to: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a terminal equipment to: when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determine whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determine whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection to the second AP, send, using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection to the second AP, send, using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP , wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establish the connection with the second AP. when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establish the connection with the second AP. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 15 of the ‘792 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 15 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 15 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 15 of the ‘792 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and 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. 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 16-20 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 16-20 of '792 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,795. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales. Instant Application Claim 1 Claims ‘785 Patent Claim 1 Claims A method, comprising: A method, comprising: performing, by terminal equipment, information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band; when terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determining, by the terminal equipment, the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP, wherein an operating frequency band of the second AP is a second frequency band; determining, by the terminal equipment, the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP, wherein an operating frequency band of the second AP is a second frequency band, sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP , wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and receiving, by the terminal equipment, a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP; and when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘795 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 1 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 1 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 1 of the ‘795 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and the bolded words. The differences are deemed obvious as follows. Pertaining to 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. 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. Additionally, and pertaining to the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording, but meaning is similar or the same. It is 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 the same. A motivation for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclosed invention. The dependent claims 2-7 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 2-9 of '795 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. Instant Application Claim 8 Claims ‘795 Patent Claim 10 Claims A terminal equipment comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions; and a transceiver, wherein the processor, the memory, and the transceiver are coupled to a bus system, wherein the transceiver is configured to receive and send messages under control of the processor, to implement communication between the terminal equipment and an access point (AP); wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions stored in the non-transitory memory, to perform operations comprising: 10. A terminal equipment comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory storage comprising instructions; a transceiver configured to receive and send messages under control of the processor, implementing communication between the terminal equipment and an access point (AP); the processor, the non-transitory memory storage, and the transceiver being coupled to a bus system of the terminal equipment; and wherein the processor executes the instructions to perform operations comprising: when the terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first access point (AP) on a first frequency band, determining whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when terminal equipment performs information transmission with a first AP on a first frequency band, determining whether the terminal equipment is to establish a connection with a second AP; when the terminal equipment determines that the terminal equipment is to establish the connection with the second AP, sending, by the terminal equipment using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP, wherein the connection request requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment determines that the first AP and the second AP correspond to the same dual-band radio access device, sending, using the second frequency band, a connection request to the second AP , wherein the connection request is requests to establish the connection with the second AP; and when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establishing, by the terminal equipment, the connection with the second AP. when the terminal equipment receives a success message that is fed back according to the connection request and that is sent by the second AP, establishing the connection with the second AP. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 15 of the ‘792 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 15 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 15 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 15 of the ‘792 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and 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. 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 16-20 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 16-20 of '792 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. Rationales: From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 10 of the ‘795 patent anticipates all recitations in claim 8 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 8 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 10 of the ‘795 patent. There is a mere difference between the claim depicted in the strike-through words and the bolded words. The differences are deemed obvious as follows. Pertaining to 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. 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. Additionally, and pertaining to the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording, but meaning is similar or the same. It is 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 the same. A motivation for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclosed invention. The dependent claims 9-14 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 11-20 of '795 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed. As per group claims 15-20, the claims appear to call for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stored thereon instructions having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claims 1, 5, 3, and 4-6, respectively. Thus, they are deemed obvious over group claims 1-9 of the ‘795 patent for the same rationales applied to method claims 1, 5, 3, and 4-6 as above discussed. Allowable Subject Matter It is noted that claims 1-20 of the instant application claim recite similar limitations as those in claims 1-18 of the ‘053 patent, claims 1-20 of the ‘792 patent, and claims 1-20 of the ‘795 patent as above discussed. 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 for at least the same one of rationales stated in the allowance of the above patents. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lynn, Jr. et al. (US 11,627,517). Gillon et al. (US 11,644,974). Ram et al. (US 2013/0148609). Yao et al. (US 2014/0024403). 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 25, 2026