CTNF 18/991,265 CTNF 74795 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1 to 20 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The references listed in the information disclosure statement submitted on 1-15-2025 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 10 recites “generating an initial control frame (ICF) configured for transmission to a plurality of wireless devices,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mathematical calculation but for the transmission to a plurality of wireless devices. Other than reciting “transmission to a plurality of wireless devices,” nothing in the claim prevents the steps of “generating an initial control frame (UCF) from being part of the mathematical concept grouping performing a mathematical calculation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of a mathematical calculation of the mathematical concept grouping but for the recitation of generic components for performing the abstract idea, then the claim is an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitation of “transmission to a plurality of wireless devices” is a generic process for carrying out the abstract idea using generic components. The additional limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as well as fails to provide an improvement to technology or the computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic process and/or generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitation amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. The additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and thus it does not impart any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. The step of transmission to a plurality of wireless devices” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation fails to improve technology or the function of a computer; therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claims 1 and 16 are similar to claim 10 and are also rejected for the same rational applied to claim 10. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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, 5, 7 to 8, 10, 14 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9 to 11, 15 and 16 of co-pending Application No. 18/991, 2281. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are an obvious variation of the co-pending claims and are not patentably distinct. The scope of the claims are similar even though the initial control frame (ICF) of the claims comprises a different type of frame check sequence (FCS). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ICF to include either an “intermediate FCS” or “per-user FCS” because adding a filed to the ICF is well known and used in the art as stated in the specification (see paragraph 0002). This modification would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a known process for adding a FCS to the ICF for its advantages in the art as taught Zhang (see par. 0098). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The table below shows the similarities between claim 1 of the co-pending application and claim 1 of the instant application. Co-pending application 18/991,281 Instant application 18/991,265 1. A method for operation by an access point (AP) wireless device, comprising: 1. A method for operation in wireless communication, comprising: transmitting, to a plurality of wireless devices, transmitting, to a plurality of wireless devices, an initial control frame (ICF) comprising an an initial control frame (ICF) comprising intermediate frame check sequence (FCS). one or more per-user frame check sequences (FCSs). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 9 to 10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (EP 4 255 069A1) . Claims 1 and 16 : Seok substantially teaches the claimed invention. Seok teaches a method and an apparatus for an enhanced multi-link single-radio (EMLSR) and enhanced multi-link multi-radio (EMLMR) sub-band operations in wireless communications, the method comprising: a first multi-link device (110) comprising multiple stations (STA) in communication with a second multi-link device (120) having multiple access points (AP) (see fig. 1, and col. 5, lines 20 to 35). Seok teaches that each MLD (110 or 120) may function as an AP MLD or a non-AP MLD wherein an AP affiliated with an AP MLD may transmit an EML (enhanced multi-link) operating mode notification frame to one of the STAs affiliated with the non-AP MLD within a timeout interval (see col. 6, lines 45 to 54). Seok teaches that frame exchanges that is initiated by the AP MLD sends an initial control frame (ICF) (see col. 7, line 55 to 58). Seok teaches that the ICF may be a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) trigger frame (see col. 8, lines 1 to 7). Seok teaches that a trigger frame format comprises a frame check sequence and a cyclic redundancy check user info field for checking reliability issues (see col. 12, lines 10 to 20). Seok fails to teach the limitation of: an initial control frame (IFC) comprising one or more per-user frame check sequence (FCS);” however, this teaching is obvious to the teachings of Seok because, Seok teaches that the ICF is a trigger frame and the format for a trigger frame includes a FCS (see fig. 3 and par. 0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ICF to include FCS since, Seok teaches that a format for a trigger frame may include a FCS for addressing reliability issues with respect to switching, during padding duration. This modification would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a frame format for addressing reliability issues by adding a FCS to a trigger frame as taught by Seok (see par. 0026). Claim 10: Seok teaches a method and an apparatus for an enhanced multi-link single-radio (EMLSR) and enhanced multi-link multi-radio (EMLMR) sub-band operations in wireless communications, the method comprising: a first multi-link device (110) comprising multiple stations (STA) in communication with a second multi-link device (120) having multiple access points (AP) (see fig. 1, and col. 5, lines 20 to 35). Seok teaches that each MLD (110 or 120) may function as an AP MLD or a non-AP MLD wherein an AP affiliated with an AP MLD may transmit an EML (enhanced multi-link) operating mode notification frame to one of the STAs affiliated with the non-AP MLD within a timeout interval (see col. 6, lines 45 to 54). Seok teaches that frame exchanges that is initiated by the AP MLD sends an initial control frame (ICF) (see col. 7, line 55 to 58). Seok teaches that the ICF may be a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) trigger frame (see col. 8, lines 1 to 7). Seok teaches that a trigger frame format comprises a frame check sequence and a cyclic redundancy check user info field for checking reliability issues (see col. 12, lines 10 to 20). As to the further limitation of the claim, Seok teaches an apparatus (1910) having a memory (19140 coupled to and access by processor (1912) for storing data (see col. 21, lines 50 et seq.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ICF to include FCS since, Seok teaches that a format for a trigger frame may include a FCS for addressing reliability issues with respect to switching, during padding duration. This modification would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a frame format for addressing reliability issues by adding a FCS to a trigger frame as taught by Seok (see par. 0026). As per claim 9 , Seok teaches that the ICF frame is a MU-RTS trigger frame and the trigger frame includes may includes request for switching and for padding duration (see par. 0026 to 0028). As per claim 20 , Seok teaches that the ICF may be a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) trigger frame (see col. 8, lines 1 to 7) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2 to 4, 6, 12 to 13, 15 and 17 to 19 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. Claims 5, 7 to 8, 10 and 14 would be allowable once the double patenting rejection is overcome. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lan et al. Enhanced multilink single-radio operation for next generation IEEE 802.11 BE Wi-Fi systems , Wiley, Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLY A CHASE whose telephone number is (571)272-3816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-5:30, 2nd Friday 8:00-4:30. 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, Albert Decady can be reached at 571-272 3819. 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. /Shelly A Chase/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/991,265 Page 2 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/991,265 Page 3 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/991,265 Page 4 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/991,265 Page 5 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/991,265 Page 6 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/991,265 Page 7 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/991,265 Page 8 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/991,265 Page 9 Art Unit: 2112
Prosecution Insights