Application No. 16/614,821
`Reply to Office Action Dated December8, 2021
`
`REMARKS
`
`After entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 21-27 and 31-37 will be pending in the
`
`present application. Claims 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 and 31-37 are amended. Claims 28-30 and 38-40
`
`are cancelled in the present response. Applicant submits that no new matter has been introduced
`
`in the present application by the foregoing amendment. Support for the foregoing amendment
`
`may be foundin at least paragraphs [0061 ]-[0075] of the filed application.
`
`Objections to the Specification:
`
`The Examiner objected to the specification.
`
`Paragraphs [0012] and [0015] are amended as suggested by the Examiner.
`
`The Examinerasserts that the “application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure
`
`as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b)” and that “an abstract on a separate sheet is required.”
`
`Applicant submits that the present application has the abstract of the PCT application
`
`from whichnational phase entry in the United States was made and which wascapturedin the
`
`application publication of the present application.
`
`Withdrawal of the objection to the specification is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Objections:
`
`The Examiner objected to claims 23, 26, 28, 36 and 38.
`
`Claims 23, 26 and 36 are amended as suggested by the Examiner. The objected to
`
`subject matter of claims 28 and 38 is incorporated in claims 21 and 31, respectively, and
`
`amended as suggested by the Examiner.
`
`Withdrawalof the objections to claims 23, 26 and 36 is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. $112:
`
`Claims 21—40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite.
`
`Claims 21 and 31 are amendedto indicate that WUR is an initialism for Wake-Up Radio.
`
`Applicant submits that claims 25 and 35 depend on claims 21 and 31, respectively.
`
`Claims 25 and 35 specify a further limitation in relation to claims 21 and 31, respectively.
`
`Accordingly, use of the transmitter address recited in claims 25 and 35 is in addition to use of the
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/614,821
`Reply to Office Action Dated December8, 2021
`
`temporal key and first part of the TSF timer of the communication apparatus recited in claims 21
`
`and 31, respectively.
`
`Claims 27 and 37 depend on claims 21 and 31, respectively, and specify a further
`
`limitation in relation to claims 21 and 31, respectively. Accordingly, use of the ID field recited
`
`in claims 27 and 37 is in addition to use of the temporal key andfirst part of the TSF timer of the
`
`communication apparatus recited in claims 21 and 31, respectively.
`
`Claims 27 and 37 are amendedto recite that ID is an abbreviation for identifier.
`
`Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of claims 21, 25, 27, 31, 35 and 37 is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of claims 22-24, 26, 32-34 and 36, which
`
`were only rejected by virtue of their respective dependence on a rejected base claim,is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. $101:
`
`Claims 21—23, 25-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to
`
`non-statutory subject matter.
`
`The Examiner acknowledges(at page 9) that “claims 24 and 34 are deemed to be patent
`
`eligible.”
`
`Claims 21 and 31 are amendedto incorporate the subject matter previously recited in
`
`claims 24 and 34, respectively.
`
`Thus, claims 21 and 31 are patent-eligible. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections
`
`of claims 21 and 31 is respectfully requested.
`
`Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections of claims 22, 23, 25-27, 32, 33 and 35-37,
`
`which are patent-eligible at least by virtue of their respective dependence on a patent-eligible
`
`claim, is respectfully requested.
`
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C.
`$102 and 35 U.S.C.
`$103:
`
`Claims 21, 24-26, 28, 29, 31, 34-36, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as
`
`being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0057703 to Benoit etal.
`
`(hereinafter “Benoit’”). Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/614,821
`Reply to Office Action Dated December8, 2021
`
`over Benoit in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0264954 to Qi etal.
`
`(hereinafter “Qi”). Claims 23, 27, 30, 33, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Benoit in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0063788 to
`
`Yang etal. (hereinafter “Yang’).
`
`Claim 21, as amended,recites:
`
`A communication apparatus comprising:
`circuitry which, in operation, uses both a temporal key anda first part of a
`Time Synchronization Function (TSF) timer of the communication apparatus to
`compute a Message Integrity Code (MIC); and
`a transmitter which, in operation, transmits, to a station associated with the
`communication apparatus, a Wake-Up Radio (WUR)frame with the MIC,
`wherein the WUR frame includes a second part of the TSF timer of the
`communication apparatus for time adjustment and does not includes the first part
`of the TSF timer of the communication apparatusfor MIC verification, and
`wherein the WUR frame wakes up the station associated with the
`communication apparatus.
`(Emphasis added)
`
`Applicant submits that Benoit, Qi and Yang do not disclose or suggest at least the above-
`
`italicized subject matter of amendedclaim 21.
`
`Benoit discloses that an AP “generates a clock resynchronization frame including a frame
`
`control (FC) field, a receiver address (RA) field including the RA of the STA, a time value (TV)
`
`field including a time value to be used by the STA to resynchronize the clock of the STA, a
`
`sequence numberfield including the sequence numberN,and a frame authentication code (FAC)
`
`field” and “the AP transmits, at 2260, the clock resynchronization frame to the STA” (4[0170]).
`
`Benoit discloses that “the FAC is calculated by the AP based on the TK of the previous session
`
`(e.g., the first association with the STA), the TA of the AP, the TV, the sequence numberN, and
`
`the RA of the STA” (§[0171]). Benoit discloses that “if the FC [frame control] field indicates the
`
`frame is a clock resynchronization frame and the RA matches, then the STA extracts a FAC, TV,
`
`and N,from the frame” (4[0174]).
`
`Per Benoit, the AP calculates the frame authentication code field based on the TV and
`
`transmits a clock resynchronization frame including the TV and frame authentication codefield
`
`tothe STA. The STA receives the clock resynchronization frame and extracts the TV. Per
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/614,821
`Reply to Office Action Dated December8, 2021
`
`Benoit, the frame authentication code field is calculated by the AP from the TV that is send to
`
`the STA.
`
`Benoit does not disclose or suggest that a “WUR frame includes a second part of the TSF
`
`timer of the communication apparatus for time adjustment and does not includesthe first part of
`
`the TSF timer of the communication apparatus for MIC verification” as recited in amended claim
`
`21. Benoit discloses that the TV (used to calculate the frame authentication codefield)is
`
`included in the clock resynchronization frame together with the frame authentication codefield.
`
`Benoit does not disclose or suggest refraining from including the timer, used to determine the
`
`frame authentication codefield, in the clock resynchronization frame.
`
`Benoit does not disclose or suggest a communication apparatus transmitting to a station a
`
`WUR framewith a MessageIntegrity Code (MIC), where the MIC is computed basedonafirst
`
`part of a Time Synchronization Function (TSF) timer and the first part of the TSF timer is not
`
`included in the WURframe. Per Benoit, the time value for authentication is carried in the clock
`
`resynchronization frame with the FAC. Benoit does not disclose not including the time value for
`
`authentication in the clock resynchronization frame with the FAC.
`
`Thus, Benoit does not disclose the subject matter of amended claim 21.
`
`Qi and Yang do notcure the deficiencies of Benoit.
`
`Claim 21 is patentable in view of Benoit, Qi and Yang. Withdrawal of the pending 35
`
`U.S.C. §102 rejection of claim 21 is respectfully requested.
`
`Furthermore, claims 22—27 are dependent on claim 21 andare, therefore, patentable in
`
`view of Benoit, Qi and Yangfor at least the same reasonsrecited above andbyvirtue of the
`
`additional claim features set forth therein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §102 and
`
`§103 rejections of claims 22—27 is respectfully requested.
`
`Although not identical in scope or language, the allowability of claims 31-37 will be
`
`apparent in view of the reasons recited above. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §102
`
`and §103 rejections of claims 31-37 is respectfully requested.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/614,821
`Reply to Office Action Dated December8, 2021
`
`Respectfully, Applicant submits that the pending claims are allowable. Favorable
`
`consideration and a Notice of Allowanceare earnestly solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Baha A. Obeidat/
`Baha A. Obeidat
`Registration No. 66,827
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`Phone: (206) 622-4900 | Fax:
`
`(206) 682-6031
`
`BAO:dec
`83427181
`
`12
`
`