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 .
1. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement dated 05/15/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Examiner suggests a title that includes terms such as bandwidth parameter, request, clear to send and/or trigger.
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.
5. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-4, 7-10 and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No.12,177,893. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader scoped claims of the instant application are disclosed within the narrower scope of claims 2-4, 7-10 and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No.12,177,893.
As for claims 1, 4 and 7, U.S. Patent No.12,177,893 claims 4, 10, and 14 disclose:
broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request to a first station, wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point; receiving, by the access point, a clear to send information from the first station in response to the sending request, wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station; allocating, by the access point in response to the available bandwidth being greater than the required bandwidth, the required bandwidth to the first station and remaining bandwidth in the available bandwidth to a second station; sending, by the access point, trigger information to the first station on the required bandwidth; and sending, by the access point, the trigger information to the second station on the remaining bandwidth.
As for claims 2, 5 and 8, U.S. Patent No.12,177,893 claims 2, 7, and 12 disclose:
wherein the sending request is a request to send (RTS) frame, the clear to send information is a clear to send (CTS) frame, and the trigger information is a trigger frame.
As for claims 3, 6 and 9, U.S. Patent No.12,177,893 claims 3, 8, and 13 disclose:
confirming, by the access point, that the RTS/CTS frame transmission is successful based on the receipt of the clear to send information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeysekera et al, US 2015/0172012 hereafter Abeysekera in view of Liu et al, US 2014/0010145 (as cited in the IDS dated 08/04/2023) hereafter Liu and further in view of KWON, US 2016/0316458 hereafter KWON.
As for claim 1, Abeysekera discloses:
A communication method comprising:
broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request to a first station (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], [0185]-[0188], [0190], [0208], [0221]-[0231], Sending, by the AP, a request to receive the RTS frame to a station),
receiving, by the access point, a clear to send information from the first station in response to the sending request (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], [0185]-[0188], [0190], [0208], [0221]-[0231], Receiving, by the AP, a CTS/ECTS from the station in response to the request),
allocating, by the access point in response to the available bandwidth being greater than the required bandwidth, the required bandwidth to the first station (Abeysekera, [0131]-[0132], [0251], Allocating, by the AP a primary/required channel/bandwidth to the legacy station) and remaining bandwidth in the available bandwidth to a second station (Abeysekera, [0131]-[0132], [0251], Allocating the remaining secondary channels/bandwidth to the other 11ax wireless stations);
sending, by the access point, trigger information to the first station on the required bandwidth (Abeysekera, FIG. 1, [0145], Sending, by the AP 14, frame/trigger information to the primary wireless communication station); and
sending, by the access point, the trigger information to the second station on the remaining bandwidth (Abeysekera, [0145], Sending/transmitting, by the AP 14, frame/trigger information to the primary wireless communication station),
receiving, by the access point, uplink data based on the trigger information (Abeysekera, [0145], [0150]-[0152], Receiving, by the AP, the uplink BA based on the downlink frames that were sent from the AP to the station).
Abeysekera does not explicitly disclose broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request, wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point, wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station.
However, Liu discloses wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point (Liu, Fig. 11, [0103]-[0110], Sending the RTS including the bandwidth indication for the access point), wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station (Liu, Fig, 11, [0103]-[0110] , The CTS indicates a bandwidth required by the wireless communication device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Abeysekera with broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request, wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point, wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station as taught by Liu to provide more efficient bandwidth allocation.
The combination of Abeysekera and Liu does not explicitly disclose the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station.
However, KWON discloses the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station (KWON, [0305], [0320], The trigger frame TR34/TR23 is broadcast/sent/transmitted simultaneously to plurality of stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Abeysekera and Liu with the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station as taught by KWON to provide reduce messaging overhead.
As for claims 2, 5 and 8, Abeysekera discloses:
The sending request is a request to send (RTS) frame (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], Sending a request to receive the RTS frame), the clear to send information is a clear to send (CTS) frame (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], Receiving the CTS), and the trigger information is a trigger frame (Abeysekera, [0145], Sending/transmitting, by the AP 14, frame/trigger information to the primary wireless communication station).
As for claims 3, 6 and 9, Abeysekera discloses:
Confirming, by the access point, that the RTS/CTS frame transmission is successful based on the receipt of the clear to send information (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], [0251], [0325], Confirming, by the AP, the RTS/CTS is successful based on the receipt of the CTS).
As for claim 4, Abeysekera discloses:
A communication system, comprising: an access point (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], The access point including a processor and memory)and a first station; wherein the access point comprises a processor and a memory for storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the access point to:
broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request to a first station (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], [0185]-[0188], [0190], [0208], [0221]-[0231], Sending, by the AP, a request to receive the RTS frame to a station),
receiving, by the access point, a clear to send information from the first station in response to the sending request (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], [0185]-[0188], [0190], [0208], [0221]-[0231], Receiving, by the AP, a CTS/ECTS from the station in response to the request),
allocating, by the access point in response to the available bandwidth being greater than the required bandwidth, the required bandwidth to the first station (Abeysekera, [0131]-[0132], [0251], Allocating, by the AP a primary/required channel/bandwidth to the legacy station) and remaining bandwidth in the available bandwidth to a second station (Abeysekera, [0131]-[0132], [0251], Allocating the remaining secondary channels/bandwidth to the other 11ax wireless stations);
sending, by the access point, trigger information to the first station on the required bandwidth (Abeysekera, FIG. 1, [0145], Sending, by the AP 14, frame/trigger information to the primary wireless communication station); and
sending, by the access point, the trigger information to the second station on the remaining bandwidth (Abeysekera, [0145], Sending/transmitting, by the AP 14, frame/trigger information to the primary wireless communication station),
receiving, by the access point, uplink data based on the trigger information (Abeysekera, [0145], [0150]-[0152], Receiving, by the AP, the uplink BA based on the downlink frames that were sent from the AP to the station).
Abeysekera does not explicitly disclose broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request, wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point, wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station.
However, Liu discloses wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point (Liu, Fig. 11, [0103]-[0110], Sending the RTS including the bandwidth indication for the access point), wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station (Liu, Fig, 11, [0103]-[0110] , The CTS indicates a bandwidth required by the wireless communication device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Abeysekera with broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request, wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point, wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station as taught by Liu to provide more efficient bandwidth allocation.
The combination of Abeysekera and Liu does not explicitly disclose the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station.
However, KWON discloses the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station (KWON, [0305], [0320], The trigger frame TR34/TR23 is broadcast/sent/transmitted simultaneously to plurality of stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Abeysekera and Liu with the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station as taught by KWON to provide reduce messaging overhead.
As for claim 9, Abeysekera discloses:
A communication apparatus (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], The access point including a processor and memory) comprising: a processor and; a memory for storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the communication apparatus to:
broadcast a sending request to a first station (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], [0185]-[0188], [0190], [0208], [0221]-[0231], Sending, by the AP, a request to receive the RTS frame to a station),
receive a clear to send information from the first station in response to the sending request (Abeysekera, [0016]-[0023], Receiving, by the AP, a CTS/ECTS from the station in response to the request),
allocate, in response that the available bandwidth is greater than the required bandwidth, the required bandwidth to the first station (Abeysekera, [0131]-[0132], [0251], Allocating, by the AP a primary/required channel/bandwidth to the legacy station) and remaining bandwidth in the available bandwidth to a second station (Abeysekera, [0131]-[0132], [0251], Allocating the remaining secondary channels/bandwidth to the other 11ax wireless stations);
send trigger information to the first station on the required bandwidth (Abeysekera, FIG. 1, [0145], Sending, by the AP 14, frame/trigger information to the primary wireless communication station); and
send the trigger information to the second station on the remaining bandwidth (Abeysekera, [0145], Sending/transmitting, by the AP 14, frame/trigger information to the primary wireless communication station),
receiving, by the access point, uplink data based on the trigger information (Abeysekera, [0145], [0150]-[0152], Receiving, by the AP, the uplink BA based on the downlink frames that were sent from the AP to the station).
Abeysekera does not explicitly disclose broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request, wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point, wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station.
However, Liu discloses wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point (Liu, Fig. 11, [0103]-[0110], Sending the RTS including the bandwidth indication for the access point), wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station (Liu, Fig, 11, [0103]-[0110] , The CTS indicates a bandwidth required by the wireless communication device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Abeysekera with broadcasting, by an access point, a sending request, wherein the sending request comprises a first bandwidth parameter, the first bandwidth parameter indicates an available bandwidth of the access point, wherein the clear to send information comprises a second bandwidth parameter, the second bandwidth parameter corresponds to a bandwidth required by the first station as taught by Liu to provide more efficient bandwidth allocation.
The combination of Abeysekera and Liu does not explicitly disclose the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station.
However, KWON discloses the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station (KWON, [0305], [0320], The trigger frame TR34/TR23 is broadcast/sent/transmitted simultaneously to plurality of stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Abeysekera and Liu with the trigger information sent to the first station is the same trigger information sent to the second station as taught by KWON to provide reduce messaging overhead.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached on (571)272-3085. 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights