DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025, 11/13/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 11/13/2024. These drawings are considered by examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
4. Examiner suggests the Assignee must submit the Terminal Disclaimer accordingly, in order to process of the application promptly.
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 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 1-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,933 as further detailed in the table below:
Instant Application
United States Patent No. 12,149,933
Claim 1. A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive a broadcast frame, wherein the broadcast frame includes per-service information, and
wherein the per-service information includes first service information for a first service and second service information for a second service;
receive a broadcast data frame for a service,
wherein the service is the first service associated with the first service information included in the broadcast frame; and
authenticate the broadcast data frame associated with the first service.
Claim 1, A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising:
a processor; and a transceiver, wherein the transceiver and the processor are configured to:
receive a broadcast frame, wherein the broadcast frame includes per-service information and per-service origin authentication information,
wherein the per-service information includes first service information for a first service and second service information for a second service, and
wherein the per-service origin authentication information includes a first origin authentication information and a second origin authentication information; receive a broadcast data frame for a service,
wherein the service is the first service associated with the first service information included in the broadcast frame; and
use the first origin authentication information to authenticate the broadcast data frame associated with the first service.
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8. A method comprising:
receiving a broadcast frame, wherein the broadcast frame includes per-service information, and
wherein the per-service information includes first service information for a first service and second service information for a second service;
receiving a broadcast data frame for a service, wherein the service is the first service associated with the first service information included in the broadcast frame; and
authenticating the broadcast data frame associated with the first service.
Claim 10. A method comprising:
receiving a broadcast frame, wherein the broadcast frame includes per-service information and per-service origin authentication information,
wherein the per-service information includes first service information for a first service and second service information for a second service, and
wherein the per-service origin authentication information includes first origin authentication information and second origin authentication information;
receiving a broadcast data frame for a service, wherein the service is the first service associated with the first service information included in the broadcast frame; and
using the first origin authentication information to authenticate the broadcast data frame associated with the first service.
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 13
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent claims include all the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, " a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claim preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al (US 2020/0015043), hereinafter “Patil“, in view of Kim et al (US 2008/0159535), hereinafter “Kim“.
Regarding claim 1, Patil teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising:
a processor configured to (par [0007]):
receive a broadcast frame (par [0016]), wherein the broadcast frame includes per-service information (pars [0042-0044]), and wherein the per-service information includes first service information for a first service and second service information for a second service (pars [0081-0082] [0084-0085]);
receive a broadcast data frame for a service, wherein the service is the first service associated with the first service information included in the broadcast frame (fig. 13, par [0112]); and
Patil does not explicitly teach authenticate the broadcast data frame associated with the first service.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches authenticate the broadcast data frame associated with the first service (pars [0006] [0103] [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Patil to Kim, in order to improve of protecting a broadcast frame and authenticating the broadcast frame without delay between the devices and stations (as suggested by Kim in paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Patil and Kim teach the WTRU of claim 1, Patil further teaches wherein the WTRU includes a station (STA) (par [0006]).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the combination of Patil and Kim teach the WTRU of claims 1, 8, Patil further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: use the service indicated in the broadcast frame based on a successful authentication (pars [0083] [0085]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the combination of Patil and Kim teach the WTRU of claims 1, 8, Patil further teaches wherein the per-service information includes a service definition (pars [0084-0085]).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the combination of Patil and Kim teach the WTRU of claims 1, 8, Patil further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to send a request that indicates one or more services to be used by the WTRU (pars [0084-0086]), wherein the request that indicates the one or more services to be used by the WTRU includes one or more respective identifiers associated with one or more devices associated with transmission of the indicated one or more services (pars [0084-0086], [0181]).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, the combination of Patil and Kim teach the WTRU of claims 1, 8, Patil further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to use the first service indicated in the broadcast frame (pars [0081-0082] [0179-0181]), and wherein the first service is used without a query being sent from the WTRU to an originating device that provides the first service (pars [0081-0082] [0179-0181]).
Regarding claim 8, Patil teaches a method comprising:
receiving a broadcast frame (par [0016]), wherein the broadcast frame includes per-service information (pars [0042-0044]), and wherein the per-service information includes first service information for a first service and second service information for a second service (pars [0081-0082] [0084-0085]);
receiving a broadcast data frame for a service, wherein the service is the first service associated with the first service information included in the broadcast frame (fig. 13, par [0112]); and
authenticating the broadcast data frame associated with the first service.
Patil does not explicitly teach authenticate the broadcast data frame associated with the first service.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches authenticate the broadcast data frame associated with the first service (pars [0006] [0103] [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Patil to Kim, in order to improve of protecting a broadcast frame and authenticating the broadcast frame without delay between the devices and stations (as suggested by Kim in paragraph [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3, 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 3 and 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the first service information includes a first service identifier, a first content with a first restrictions indicator, a first human readable description, and a first URL, and wherein the second service information includes a second service identifier, a second content with a second restrictions indicator, a second human readable description, and a second URL as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-8131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM to 6:00PM.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on (571-272-7904. 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.
/MICHAEL T VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights