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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Nonstatutory 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 comparisons below reproduce the claim language on both sides. Underlining identifies textual differences; a blank cell indicates no corresponding language in that claim. The accompanying analysis addresses those differences. US 12,213,172 B2 is referred to below as the reference patent.
Claims 1–5 — US Patent No. 12,213,172 B2
Claims 1–5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–5, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,172 B2 (Kim et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 — over patented claim 1
Claim 1 of Current Application
Claim 1 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
A method, comprising:
A method performed by a station (STA) of a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a station (STA), a trigger frame from an associated access point (AP),
receiving a trigger frame from an access point (AP),
wherein the trigger frame includes 2-bit information,
wherein the trigger frame includes 2-bit information,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a first value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA only transmits a data unit addressed to the associated AP,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a first value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA only transmits a signal to the AP,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a second value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA transmits a data unit addressed to the associated AP or addressed to another STA; and
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a second value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA transmits a signal to the AP or another STA; and
transmitting, by the STA, the data unit based on the trigger frame.
transmitting the signal based on the trigger frame.
The difference is the express recitation of an associated AP and an addressed data unit in place of the patented claim’s AP and signal. The claimed signal genus encompasses the disclosed data-unit species: the description accompanying Fig. 5 expressly identifies signals, frames, packets and data units as PPDU-based transmissions. The discussion preceding Fig. 10 describes STAs associated with the triggering AP. Read in that context, implementing the patented trigger procedure for addressed data exchanged with that associated AP, or with the identified peer STA, is a predictable use of the claimed destination selection. It preserves the two-bit control rule and introduces no different scheduling operation. Addressing the data to the selected destination enables delivery of that data to the recipient already specified by the patented claim. The narrower wording therefore does not supply a patentable distinction on this record. The reference also expressly limits its method to a WLAN STA. The pending claim omits that express system wording but encompasses performance by that same WLAN STA; this omission does not exclude the patented implementation. The WLAN limitation is given weight in this comparison.
Dependent method claims 2–5
Claim 2 — over patented claim 2
Claim 2 of Current Application
Claim 2 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The method of claim 1, wherein the first value is related to uplink transmission to the AP, and the second value is related to the uplink transmission or peer-to-peer (P2P) transmission.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first value is related to uplink transmission to the AP, and the second value is related to the uplink transmission or peer-to-peer (P2P) transmission.
Patented claim 2 (col. 25), through its dependency on patented claim 1, expressly recites the same uplink/P2P meaning for the two values. The additional limitation is therefore expressly claimed in the reference patent. The association, addressing and data-unit differences are the same as those analyzed for pending claim 1. Applying that reasoning to the combination of the base method and this specific additional limitation, claim 2 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 2.
Claim 3 — over patented claim 3
Claim 3 of Current Application
Claim 3 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The method of claim 1, wherein the first value is zero.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first value is zero.
Patented claim 3 (col. 25), through its dependency on patented claim 1, expressly sets the first value to zero. The additional limitation is therefore expressly claimed in the reference patent. The association, addressing and data-unit differences are the same as those analyzed for pending claim 1. Applying that reasoning to the combination of the base method and this specific additional limitation, claim 3 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 3.
Claim 4 — over patented claim 4
Claim 4 of Current Application
Claim 4 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The method of claim 1, wherein the second value is two.
The method of claim 1, wherein the second value is two.
Patented claim 4 (col. 25), through its dependency on patented claim 1, expressly sets the second value to two. The additional limitation is therefore expressly claimed in the reference patent. The association, addressing and data-unit differences are the same as those analyzed for pending claim 1. Applying that reasoning to the combination of the base method and this specific additional limitation, claim 4 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 4.
Claim 5 — over patented claim 5
Claim 5 of Current Application
Claim 5 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The method of claim 1, wherein the 2-bit information is set to three (3) for a reserved value.
The method of claim 1, wherein the 2-bit information is set to three (3) for a reserved value.
Patented claim 5 (col. 25), through its dependency on patented claim 1, expressly reserves value three (3). The additional limitation is therefore expressly claimed in the reference patent. The association, addressing and data-unit differences are the same as those analyzed for pending claim 1. Applying that reasoning to the combination of the base method and this specific additional limitation, claim 5 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 5.
Claims 6–10 — US Patent No. 12,213,172 B2
Claims 6–10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6–10, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,172 B2 (Kim et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 6 — over patented claim 6
Claim 6 of Current Application
Claim 6 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
A station, comprising:
A station (STA) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the STA comprising:
a transceiver;
at least one processor; and
a processor coupled to the transceiver; and
at least one computer memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, perform operations comprising:
a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations comprising:
receiving a trigger frame from an associated access point (AP),
receiving a trigger frame from an access point (AP),
wherein the trigger frame includes 2-bit information,
wherein the trigger frame includes 2-bit information,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a first value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA only transmits a data unit addressed to the associated AP,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a first value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA only transmits a signal to the AP,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a second value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA transmits a data unit addressed to the associated AP or addressed to another STA; and
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a second value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA transmits a signal to the AP or another STA; and
transmitting the data unit based on the trigger frame.
transmitting the signal based on the trigger frame.
The processor/memory formulation does not identify a new architecture: the processor and coupled memory of patented claim 6 meet the pending language. The omission of an express transceiver limitation broadens the apparatus description without excluding the patented implementation. The reference’s express WLAN limitation is given weight; the pending station claim includes that WLAN implementation.
For the associated AP and addressed data-unit limitations, the reasoning for claim 1 applies equally to the operations performed by this STA. The reference’s claimed processor-controlled STA performs the same destination-selection procedure; using its claimed signal transmission to deliver data to the selected recipient produces the predictable data-transfer result. Claim 6 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claim 6.
Dependent apparatus claims 7–10
Claim 7 — over patented claim 7
Claim 7 of Current Application
Claim 7 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The STA of claim 6, wherein the first value is related to uplink transmission to the AP, and the second value is related to the uplink transmission or peer-to-peer (P2P) transmission.
The STA of claim 6, wherein the first value is related to uplink transmission to the AP, and the second value is related to the uplink transmission or peer-to-peer (P2P) transmission.
Patented claim 7 (col. 25), through its dependency on patented claim 6, expressly recites the same uplink/P2P meaning for the two values. The pending processor/memory language is met by the reference apparatus for the reasons stated for claim 6. The remaining association and addressed-data differences are addressed in that same analysis. Considering the apparatus and this additional limitation together, claim 7 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 7.
Claim 8 — over patented claim 8
Claim 8 of Current Application
Claim 8 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The STA of claim 6, wherein the first value is zero.
The STA of claim 6, wherein the first value is zero.
Patented claim 8 (col. 26), through its dependency on patented claim 6, expressly sets the first value to zero. The pending processor/memory language is met by the reference apparatus for the reasons stated for claim 6. The remaining association and addressed-data differences are addressed in that same analysis. Considering the apparatus and this additional limitation together, claim 8 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 8.
Claim 9 — over patented claim 9
Claim 9 of Current Application
Claim 9 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The STA of claim 6, wherein the second value is two.
The STA of claim 6, wherein the second value is two.
Patented claim 9 (col. 26), through its dependency on patented claim 6, expressly sets the second value to two. The pending processor/memory language is met by the reference apparatus for the reasons stated for claim 6. The remaining association and addressed-data differences are addressed in that same analysis. Considering the apparatus and this additional limitation together, claim 9 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 9.
Claim 10 — over patented claim 10
Claim 10 of Current Application
Claim 10 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The STA of claim 6, wherein the 2-bit information is set to three (3) for a reserved value.
The STA of claim 6, wherein the 2-bit information is set to three (3) for a reserved value.
Patented claim 10 (col. 26), through its dependency on patented claim 6, expressly reserves value three (3). The pending processor/memory language is met by the reference apparatus for the reasons stated for claim 6. The remaining association and addressed-data differences are addressed in that same analysis. Considering the apparatus and this additional limitation together, claim 10 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 10.
Claims 11–15 — US Patent No. 12,213,172 B2
Claims 11–15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11–15, respectively, in combination with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,172 B2 (Kim et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 11 — over patented claims 11 and 1
Claim 11 of Current Application
Claims 11 and 1 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
A method, comprising:
An Access Point (AP) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the AP comprising:
a transceiver;
a processor coupled to the transceiver; and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations comprising:
transmitting, by an associated access point (AP), a trigger frame to a station (STA),
transmitting a trigger frame to a station (STA),
wherein the trigger frame includes 2-bit information,
wherein the trigger frame includes 2-bit information,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a first value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA only transmits a data unit addressed to the associated AP,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a first value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA only transmits a signal to the AP,
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a second value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA transmits a data unit addressed to the associated AP or addressed to another STA; and
wherein the 2-bit information is set to a second value for the trigger frame initiating a procedure in which the STA transmits a signal to the AP or another STA.
receiving, by the associated AP, the data unit based on the trigger frame.
A person of ordinary skill would operate the AP of patented claim 11 to carry out its expressly claimed trigger-transmission operation, and would receive at that AP the uplink transmission performed by the STA of patented claim 1. The reason is to deliver the requested uplink data to the AP selected as recipient by the patented trigger procedure. The claimed roles are complementary parts of the same triggered exchange, not unrelated functions assembled without a reason. The reference’s WLAN and processor/memory/transceiver limitations are given weight: the proposed method is performed using that expressly claimed WLAN apparatus.
The pending method therefore adds actual performance of the claimed AP operation and receipt of the resulting uplink data. The first-value procedure expressly selects AP-only transmission; the second permits AP-directed transmission as one alternative. The pending claim does not require the AP to receive peer-directed data. The description of Fig. 10 confirms the meaning of the claimed uplink exchange: the AP transmits the trigger, receives uplink data and may respond with ACK or BA. This description clarifies the claimed operation; it is not a separate prior-art reference.
Together with the association and addressed-data reasoning for claim 1, this establishes why claim 11 is an obvious method of using the claimed AP with the claimed STA exchange. The receiving step is not represented as verbatim language of patented claim 11.
Dependent AP method claims 12–15
Claim 12 — over patented claims 12 and 1
Claim 12 of Current Application
Claims 12 and 1 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The method of claim 11, wherein the first value is related to uplink transmission to the AP, and the second value is related to the uplink transmission or peer-to-peer (P2P) transmission.
The AP of claim 11, wherein the first value is related to uplink transmission to the AP, and the second value is related to the uplink transmission or peer-to-peer (P2P) transmission.
Patented claim 12 (col. 26), through its dependency on patented claim 11, expressly recites the same uplink/P2P meaning for the two values. The method-of-use and AP-receiving analysis for pending claim 11 applies to this specifically limited AP operation, using the complementary STA transmission of patented claim 1. The recited code meaning does not change the reason to receive the selected uplink data at the AP. Claim 12 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 12 and 1.
Claim 13 — over patented claims 13 and 1
Claim 13 of Current Application
Claims 13 and 1 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The method of claim 11, wherein the first value is zero.
The AP of claim 11, wherein the first value is zero.
Patented claim 13 (col. 26), through its dependency on patented claim 11, expressly sets the first value to zero. The method-of-use and AP-receiving analysis for pending claim 11 applies to this specifically limited AP operation, using the complementary STA transmission of patented claim 1. The recited code meaning does not change the reason to receive the selected uplink data at the AP. Claim 13 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 13 and 1.
Claim 14 — over patented claims 14 and 1
Claim 14 of Current Application
Claims 14 and 1 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The method of claim 11, wherein the second value is two.
The AP of claim 11, wherein the second value is two.
Patented claim 14 (col. 26), through its dependency on patented claim 11, expressly sets the second value to two. The method-of-use and AP-receiving analysis for pending claim 11 applies to this specifically limited AP operation, using the complementary STA transmission of patented claim 1. The recited code meaning does not change the reason to receive the selected uplink data at the AP. Claim 14 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 14 and 1.
Claim 15 — over patented claims 15 and 1
Claim 15 of Current Application
Claims 15 and 1 of Parent US Patent 12,213,172
The method of claim 11, wherein the 2-bit information is set to three (3) for a reserved value.
The AP of claim 11, wherein the 2-bit information is set to three (3) for a reserved.
Patented claim 15 (col. 26), through its dependency on patented claim 11, sets the two-bit information to three (3) “for a reserved.” In context, this reserves that code value; the pending addition of the word “value” does not change the operation. The method-of-use and AP-receiving analysis for pending claim 11 applies to this specifically limited AP operation, using the complementary STA transmission of patented claim 1. The recited code meaning does not change the reason to receive the selected uplink data at the AP. Claim 15 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 15 and 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights