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
2. Claims 1-4 and 6 are pending.
Response to election/restriction
3. Claims 1-6 were filed on 01/13/2025. Applicant elected claims 1-4 and 6 with traverse. (see Restriction/Election response filed on 06/01/2026).
4. Applicant argues that invention II, represented by claim 5, necessarily includes all essential elements of Invention I, represented by claims 1-4 and 6. Applicant particularly asserts that the “connection control device” recited in claim 5 performs the same determination and connection control functions recited in claims 1-4 and 6, and therefore contends that Invention II is not separately usable and that the two inventions are not properly considered distinct inventions.
In response,
Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant’s argument. Claim 5 is directed to a connection control system comprising both a connection control device and display device. In addition to reciting the connection control functionality corresponding to the elected invention, claim 5 expressly requires that the display device include:
a) a receiving unit that receives video transmitted from the second device connected to the display device; and
b) a display unit that displays the video.
Neither of these display-device limitation is recited in claims 1-4 and 6. The fact that the connection control device in claim 5 performs functions corresponding to the determination unit and connection control unit of claims 1-4 and 6 does not eliminate the distinction between the claimed inventions. The connection control functionality is only one portion of claim 5. Claim 5 additionally requires a display device having a receiving unit and a display unit, with the receiving unit specifically receiving video transmitted form the second device connected to the display device and the display unit displaying that video. The additional display-device limitations are not merely incidental limitations or a particular implementation of the connection-control device. Rather , they introduce a separate set of technical features concerning video transmission, reception, and display between the display device and the second device.
Searching for prior art corresponding to these features would reasonably require consideration of references in the display/video communications arts that need not to be considered when searching the elected invention directed to connection control based on device type and connection capacity. Accordingly, applicant’s traversal of the restriction requirement is not persuasive, and the restriction requirement is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.--The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventorregards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctlyclaiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 and 6 recite “..the connection control unit permits connection to the second device if there are (N (where N is an integer of 1 or more) + 1 - (a number of the first devices of the first type that have established connection with the second device))” the limitation “available connections” is indefinite because it lacks a clear antecedent basis and fails to specify the structural referent to which the number of “available connection” corresponds. Specifically, it is unclear whether “available connection” refer to: available connection slots of the second device, available connection of the connection control device, or some other unspecified capacity metric.
Furthermore, the clam does not explicitly set forth a total capacity value (e.g. a maximum number of connection that the second device or control device can support). Without a defined total capacity, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the baseline against which the expression (N+1-X) is compared. For example, if the second device a capacity of 10 connection the mathematical condition yields one result, but if the capacity is 5 connections, it yields a different operational outcome. The claim provides no guidance as to which capacity applies, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and ambiguous. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. Claims 1-4 and 6 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) Claims 1-4 and 6 limitation use the terms “a determination unit that determines .. and connection control unit” that are generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the terms “a determination unit that determines .. and connection control unit” or the generic placeholder are modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the terms “a determination unit that determines .. and connection control unit” or the generic placeholder are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the terms “a determination unit that determines .. and connection control unit” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the terms “a determination unit that determines .. and connection control unit” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the terms ““a determination unit that determines .. and connection control unit”” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the terms “a determination unit that determines .. and connection control unit” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 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.
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 1-2,4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashokan et al.(US 20150067172 A1) in view of Tetsuto (JP2019129428A) hereinafter referred as Testuto
Regarding claims 1 and 6 Ashokan discloses a connection control device, (see Figs. 1-2 access point)comprising:
a determination unit that determines that a first device is a device of a first type among a plurality of types (para. [0026] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating network user prioritization. FIG. 2 includes at least a network resource such as an access point 200, two or more priority classes such as priority class 210 and priority class 215, and a number of client devices such as client 220, client 230, client 235, . . . client 239, etc. Specifically, in the example illustrated in FIG. 2, client 220 is assigned to priority class 210 (e.g., a high priority class). Moreover, clients 230-239 are assigned to priority class 215 (e.g., a low priority class). [0041] priority class associated with a client device prior an initial connection. The priority class determines whether a client is designated as “high priority” or” low priority” (i.e. this priority class identification constitutes determining that a first device is of a first type (high priority class) among a plurality of types (high vs. low priority classes) and;
a connection control unit, wherein, in a case where a connection request to a second device is received from the first device (para. [0017] there may be 50 student and 1 instructor [first devices] all of who will be attempting to connect to the same AP [second device] at the same time. [0026] [0041] and Fig. 2, e.g. client t 150, client 155 client 220 clients 230-239 are requesting connection to access pint (AP)) and;
the first device is not a device of the first type, the connection control unit permits connection to the second device if there are (N (where N is an integer of 1 or more) + 1 or more available connections, or the connection control unit rejects the connection to the second device otherwise (para. [0040] assuming that an access point can support up to 50 concurrent clients, and that there are a total of 5 clients designated to the high priority class. Thus, the access point may be configured to reserve 10% of its bandwidth for client devices of the high priority class. Accordingly, the access point will only accept connection requests from up to 45 clients of a non-high priority class and reserve its capacity to be connected by 5 additional clients to those clients of the high priority class. [0041] although access point 200 has the capacity to support one addition client, access point 200 win nevertheless reject the connection requests from client 239 of priority class 215, because the additional client connection capacity has been reserved for client form priority class 210).
Ashokan teaches reserving connection capacity for high -priority clients and limiting acceptance of non-high priority clients. Ashokan may not explicitly disclose the number of already-connected priority devices affects remaining capacity/ if there are (N (where N is an integer of 1 or more) + 1 - (a number of the first devices of the first type that have established connection with the second device)
However Tetsuto discloses if there are (N (where N is an integer of 1 or more) + 1 - (a number of the first devices of the first type that have established connection with the second device) (para. [0139] –[0142] even if a connection frame for a terminal device 200 that is a wireless connection priority target is ensured, there is a margin for N-i terminal devices 200 to connect to the electronic device 100". Therefore, the timing when access by a terminal device that is not a wireless connection priority target is permitted is in cases where all N-i connection frames are not filled by already-connected terminal devices that are not wireless connection priority targets, i.e., (N-i-(the number of connected terminal devices that are not wireless connection priority targets) 1). Meanwhile, the maximum number of connections of the electronic device 100 is N. Therefore, the relationship (N = (the number of terminal devices that can be connected) + (the number of connected terminal devices that are not wireless connection priority targets) + (the number of connected terminal devices that are wireless connection priority targets)).
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 system of Ashokan and include the number of already-connected priority devices affects remaining capacity/ if there are (N (where N is an integer of 1 or more) + 1 - (a number of the first devices of the first type that have established connection with the second device)
using the teaching of Tetsuto. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve utilization of unused connection capacity and preservation of capacity for priority devices.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Ashokan further discloses wherein the connection control device is the second device (para [0017], [0026] [0041] control device is AP).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Ashokan further discloses wherein N is 1 (para. [0041] when the number of connectable terminal devices 200 is one it is sufficient to determine whether the is room for permitting a connection request by determining whether a second list information is empty).
12. Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashokan et al.(US 20150067172 A1) in view of Tetsuto (JP2019129428A) hereinafter referred as Testuto and further in view of Han et al. (US 20140204802 A1) hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated. Ashokan in view of Tetsuto may not explicitly disclose wherein the connection control device is the first device of the first type. However, Han discloses wherein the connection control device is the first device of the first type (para. [0050] a network device is identified as a priority device)
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 system of Ashokan in view of Tetsuto and include wherein the connection control device is the first device of the first type using the teaching of Han. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the performance of the wireless network by spreading the burdens across components based on availability, and no configuration is needed on the network device.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Mendaye whose telephone number is (571)272-2603. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 7:00 am-5:00pm EST. 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, Ario Etienne can be reached on (571) 272-4001. 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.
08/22/2026
/KIDEST MENDAYE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/MOUSTAFA M MEKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights