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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 05/05/2025.
Claims 2, 5, 7- 25 are pending and are examined in this office action.
Claims 2, 20, 21, 24 has been amended.
No new claim has been added and claims 1, 3-4, 6, has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/05/2025 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of SEOK et al. (US RE49983 E ; hereinafter as ‘SEOK).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of US Patent Number: US 10/917,913 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-25 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of the claims 1-17 of US Patent Number: US 10/917,913 B2.. Thus, the claims 2-22 of the instant application are anticipated by the claims 1-17 of the US Patent Number: US 10/917,913 B2.
Sample of the claims comparison between 17/120,451 and US 10/917,913 B2.
With independent claims:
Current application’s claims: 17/120,451
US Patent Number: US 10/917,913 B2
2. (Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising: memory circuitry; and
a processor comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause a first wireless communication station (STA) to:
identify a first plurality of directions based on a plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames from a second STA;
select a second plurality of directions based on Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states of the first plurality of directions,
wherein the processor is configured to cause the first STA to exclude from the second plurality of directions any directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA non-idle state such that the second plurality of directions is to comprise only directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA idle state; and
transmit to the second STA a plurality of Clear to Send (CTS) frames in the second plurality of directions.
15. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the plurality of streams comprises a plurality of Multiple-input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) streams.
13. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the PPDU comprises a Single User (SU) PPDU.
1. An apparatus comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause a wireless station to:
determine a plurality of directions to transmit the plurality of data streams, respectively;
detect a plurality of Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states corresponding to the plurality of directions, respectively;
based on the plurality of CCA states, transmit a plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames in a plurality of respective directions having a CCA idle state;
determine one or more selected directions of the plurality a directions to comprise directions from which a Clear to Send (CTS) frame is received; and
transmit one or more selected data streams of the plurality of data streams in the one or more selected directions, respectively, by reconstructing the PPDU to comprise the one or more selected data streams.
construct a Physical Layer Convergence Protocol (PLCP) Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) comprising a plurality of data streams of a Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) transmission;
20. (Currently Amended) A product comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising computer-executable instructions operable to, when executed by at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to cause a first wireless communication station (STA) to: identify a first plurality of directions based on a plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames from a second STA; select a second plurality of directions based on Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states of the first plurality of directions, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the first STA to exclude from the second plurality of directions any directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA non-idle state such that the second plurality of directions is to comprise only directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA idle state; and transmit to the second STA a plurality of Clear to Send (CTS) frames in the second plurality of directions.
12. The apparatus of claim 2 configured to cause the first STA to process a plurality of streams of a Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) from the second STA, the plurality of streams received via the second plurality of directions, respectively.
7. A product comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising computer-executable instructions operable to, when executed by at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to cause a wireless station to: construct a Physical Layer Convergence Protocol (PLCP) Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) comprising a plurality of data streams of a Multiple-input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) transmission; determine a plurality of directions to transmit the plurality of data streams, respectively; detect a plurality of Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states corresponding to the plurality of directions, respectively; based on the plurality of CCA states, transmit a plurality of Request to Send (RES) frames in a plurality of respective directions having a CCA idle state; determine one or more selected directions of the plurality of directions to comprise directions from which a Clear to Send (CTS) frame is received; and transmit one or more selected data streams of the plurality of data streams in the one or more selected directions, respectively, by reconstructing the PPDU to comprise the one or more selected data streams.
24. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for a first wireless communication station (STA), the apparatus comprising: means for identifying a first plurality of directions based on a plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames from a second STA; means for selecting a second plurality of directions based on Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states of the first plurality of directions, wherein the means for selecting the second plurality of directions is configured to exclude from the second plurality of directions any directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA non-idle state such that the second plurality of directions is to comprise only directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA idle state; and means for causing the first STA to transmit to the second STA a plurality of Clear to Send (CTS) frames in the second plurality of directions.
10. An apparatus comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause a first wireless station to: receive from a second wireless station plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames from a plurality of respective different directions; detect a plurality of Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states corresponding to the plurality of directions, respectively; select a plurality of selected directions from the plurality of directions based on the plurality of CCA states corresponding to the plurality of directions, the plurality of selected directions comprise only directions having a detected CCA idle state; and transmit to the second wireless station a plurality of Clear to Send (CTS) frames in the plurality of selected directions, respectively.
24. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for a first wireless communication station (STA), the apparatus comprising: means for identifying a first plurality of directions based on a plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames from a second STA; means for selecting a second plurality of directions based on Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states of the first plurality of directions, wherein the means for selecting the second plurality of directions is configured to exclude from the second plurality of directions any directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA non-idle state such that the second plurality of directions is to comprise only directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA idle state; and means for causing the first STA to transmit to the second STA a plurality of Clear to Send (CTS) frames in the second plurality of directions.
15. A product comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising computer-executable instructions operable to, when executed by at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to cause a first wireless station to: receive from a second wireless station a plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames from a plurality of respective different directions; detect a plurality of Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states corresponding to the plurality of directions, respectively; select a plurality of selected directions from the plurality of directions based on the plurality of CCA states corresponding to the plurality of directions, the plurality of selected directions comprise only directions having a detected CCA idle state; and transmit to the second wireless station a plurality of Clear to Send (CTS) frames in the plurality of selected directions, respectively.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims 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) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linGHANBARINEJAD word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) 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 word “means” (or “step”) 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 word “means” (or “step”) 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 word “means” (or “step”) 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
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 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.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 16, 18-22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH et al. (US 20100172296 Al; hereinafter as "SINGH", provided in IDS}) in view of GHANBARIGHANBARINEJAD et al. (US 20170105224 A1 with priority of us-provisional-application US 62240855, hereinafter as ‘GHANBARIGHANBARINEJAD”) and further in view of in view of SEOK et al. (US RE49983 E ; hereinafter as ‘SEOK).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to SINGH unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 2, SINGH teaches an apparatus (see Fig.1. Wireless devices W1-W4: [0031]) comprising:
memory circuitry (Data control Module: [0036]); and
a processor (pre-processing Module: [0036]) comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause a first wireless communication station (STA) (“wireless devices W1-W4 can be electronic devices that have wireless capability. Examples of such electronic devices include, but are not limited to, a mobile phone, ….. a computer, a hand-held computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA)”: [0033]) to:
identify a first plurality of directions based on a plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames from a second STA (==Wireless Device 4 (W4) in fig. 1) (aforesaid Wireless Device W2 [NOTE: a first wireless station] receives RTS frames from another wireless device/Wireless Device 4 [NOTE: a second wireless station], W4 in Fig 1: "The wireless devices W1-W4 can communicate with one another via a peer-to-peer link. In such an instance1 one of the wireless devices (hereinafter1 referred to as a "source device") sends signals directly to another wireless device (hereinafter1 referred to as a "destination device")": [0034]; see Fig 5: RTS from Source to Destination: “If the wireless channel is idle until the end of the DIFS, the source station transmits multiple request-to-send (mRTS) messages 510 addressed to the destination station.”: [0058]; See Fig, 7 block 740: “At block 740, the source station can send multiple request-to-send (mRTS) messages in multiple directions, as shown in the timing diagram of FIG. 5.”: [0079]-[0080]; See also Fig. 10 block 1020, “ At block 1020, the destination station may receive one or more of mRTS messages from the source station, ”: [0089]);
transmit to the second STA a plurality of Clear to Send (CTS) frames in the second plurality of directions ( See Fig. 7 block 770, and Fig. 10 block 1020: "At block 1030, upon receiving the one or more mRTS messages, if the destination station is available for establishing a peer-to-peer connection with the source station, the destination station can transmit mCTS messages in multiple directions, as shown in the timing diagram of FIG. 5.: [0089] ; “at block 770, the source station may receive one or more of multiple clear-to-send (mCTS) messages from the destination station, as shown in the timing diagram of FIG. 5 ”;[0086]; “. In FIG. 11A, the destination station STA-Y transmits a first mCTS message in a first direction which covers a first angular range of about 360.degree./k, where k is the number of directions in which mCTS messages are transmitted. In the illustrated embodiment, the mCTS messages are transmitted in five directions, and thus, the first angular range is about 360.degree./5, or about 72.degree. ”[0090]; CCA in one direction: [0078]).
SINGH, when teaching identify a first plurality of directions based on a plurality of Request to Send (RTS) frames from a second STA, SINGH appears silent on
select a second plurality of directions based on Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states of the first plurality of directions.
GHANBARINEJAD, in the same field of endeavor, discloses:
select a second plurality of directions based on Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) states of the first plurality of directions
PNG
media_image1.png
508
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
348
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(See Fig. 5: “a transmitter and a receiver may take several steps to assure that the channel is idle before transmission. … the source STA 206 (==Source STA of SINGH) ) may send a directional RTS frame 504 to a destination STA 208 (==Destination STA of SINGH), for example in a beamformed transmission. The medium may be considered clear by the source STA 206 (==Clear Channel Assessment (CCA))... The directional RTS frame 504 may be transmitted in one specific direction or in multiple specific directions simultaneously. …..
When the destination STA 208 receives the directional RTS frame 504, and if the omnidirectional NAV and a directional NAV toward the source STA 206 are zero, the destination STA 208 may respond with an omnidirectional TNAV frame 506, informing STAs around it that the destination STA 208 will be possibly “deaf” for a certain period of time.
The destination STA 208 may listen (i.e., senses the channel) directionally towards the source STA 206 for a period determined by the channel quality measurement (CQM) 502 period to make sure the upcoming communications will not collide with other ongoing transmissions. If the destination STA 208 senses the medium clear, the destination STA 208 may send a CTS frame 512 directionally to the source STA 206.”: [0037-0039]
See also Fig. 7 block 730, “ step 730, where quality of a channel between the destination station and the source station is estimated by the destination station during the CQM period. Subsequently, the method 700 proceeds to step 740, where a directional clear-to-send (CTS) frame is transmitted by the destination station to the source station if the estimated quality of the channel satisfies a criterion. ”: [0051];
(It is obvious that STA 208 does CCA states of all/omni directions including the first plurality of directions))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of multi-directional RTS/CTS of SINGH to include the above recited limitation of CCA assessment of channel directions as taught by GHANBARINEJAD. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been for improving spatial reuse in directional random access using selective directional blocking in the case that other STAs may have data to transmit (GHANBARINEJAD; [0002, 0045]).
The combination of SINGH and GHANBARINEJAD does not expressively disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the first STA to exclude from the second plurality of directions any directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA non-idle state such that the second plurality of directions is to comprise only directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA idle state.
SEOK, in the same field of endeavor, discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the first STA to exclude from the second plurality of directions any directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA non-idle state such that the second plurality of directions is to comprise only directions of the first plurality of directions which have a detected CCA idle state ( “receiving, by a first station, a plurality of request to send (RTS) frames from a second station through a plurality of subchannels, each of the plurality of RTS frames being received through a corresponding one of the plurality of subchannels, each of the plurality of subchannels having a 20 megahertz (MHz) bandwidth; transmitting, by the first station, a plurality of clear to send (CTS) frames in response to at least one of the plurality of RTS frames to the second station through a plurality of idle subchannels of the plurality of subchannels, each of the plurality of CTS frames being transmitted through a corresponding one of the plurality of idle subchannels; and receiving, by the first station, a data frame from the second station after transmitting the plurality of CTS frames, wherein each of the plurality of CTS frames includes channel information related to the plurality of idle subchannels through which the plurality of CTS frames are transmitted by the first station, and the data frame is received through the plurality of idle subchannels indicated by the channel information, and wherein a number of the plurality of idle subchannels through which the plurality of CTS frames are transmitted is equal to or less than a number of the plurality of subchannels through which the plurality of RTS frames are received..]. ”: claim 13; NOTE: First Station receives RTSs frames through plurality of subchannels, First Station transmit CTSs frames through plurality of IDLE subchannel. Also note that “a number of the plurality of idle subchannels through which the plurality of CTS frames are transmitted is equal to or less than a number of the plurality of subchannels through which the plurality of RTS frames are received” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of multi-directional RTS/CTS of SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD to include the above recited limitation of CCA assessment of channel directions as taught by SEOK. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been enabling effective channel access (SEOK; Col 5 lines 10-16]).
Regarding claim 5, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. Further, GHANBARINEJAD teaches, The apparatus of claim 2 configured to cause the first STA to select the second plurality of directions from the first plurality of directions based on the CCA states of the first plurality of (“The directional RTS frame 504 may be transmitted in one specific direction or in multiple specific directions simultaneously. …..
When the destination STA 208 receives the directional RTS frame 504, and if the omnidirectional NAV and a directional NAV toward the source STA 206 are zero, the destination STA 208 may respond with an omnidirectional TNAV frame 506, informing STAs around it that the destination STA 208 will be possibly “deaf” for a certain period of time.
The destination STA 208 may listen (i.e., senses the channel) directionally towards the source STA 206 for a period determined by the channel quality measurement (CQM) 502 period to make sure the upcoming communications will not collide with other ongoing transmissions. If the destination STA 208 senses the medium clear, the destination STA 208 may send a CTS frame 512 directionally to the source STA 206.”: [0037-0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of multi-directional RTS/CTS of SINGH to include the above recited limitation as taught by GHANBARINEJAD. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been for improving spatial reuse in directional random access using selective directional blocking in the case that other STAs may have data to transmit (GHANBARINEJAD; [0002, 0045]).
Regarding claim 7, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. Further, GHANBARINEJAD teaches, The apparatus of claim 2 configured to cause the first STA to detect the CCA states of the first plurality of directions based on receipt of the plurality of RTS frames from the second STA (see Fig. 5, [0037-0039] cited above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of multi-directional RTS/CTS of SINGH to include the above recited limitation as taught by GHANBARINEJAD. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been for improving spatial reuse in directional random access using selective directional blocking in the case that other STAs may have data to transmit (GHANBARINEJAD; [0002, 0045]).
Regarding claim 8, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. Further, SINGH teaches, The apparatus of claim 2 configured to cause the first STA to transmit two or more CTS frames of the plurality of CTS frames simultaneously (see Fig 5: mCTS in element 520: the destination station can transmit multiple clear-to-send (mCTS) messages 520 addressed to the source station: [0058]).
Regarding claim 9, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. Further, SINGH teaches, The apparatus of claim 2 configured to cause the first STA to transmit two or more CTS frames of the plurality of CTS frames sequentially (see Fig 5: mCTS in element 520: the destination station can transmit multiple clear-to-send (mCTS) messages 520 addressed to the source station: [0058]; See also “sequentially transmitting, by the second wireless device, multiple replies” [0010]).
Regarding claim 16, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. Further, SINGH teaches, the apparatus of claim 2 configured to cause the first STA to transmit the plurality of CTS frames based on a frame received from the second STA after the plurality of RTS frames (fig. 12A-12B; At block 1020, the destination station may receive one or more of mRTS messages from the source station, as shown in the timing diagram of FIG. 5. At block 1030, upon receiving the one or more mRTS messages, if the destination station is available for establishing a peer-to-peer connection with the source station, the destination station can transmit mCTS messages in multiple direction”: [0089]; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. Further, SINGH teaches, the apparatus of claim 2 comprising a radio, the processor configured to cause the radio to transmit the plurality of CTS frames (send multiple CTS[0089]).
Regarding claim 19, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. Further, SINGH teaches, the apparatus of claim 18 comprising two or more antennas connected to the radio, and another processor to execute instructions of an operating system (see fig. 3B: with multiple antenna system: [0017]; [0042]).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Claims 10-12, 17, 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK and further in view of ZHU et al. (US 20110255618 A1; hereinafter as “ZHU”).
Regarding claim 10, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. The combination of SINGH and GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK does not expressively disclose: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first plurality of directions comprises a respective plurality of antenna beam directions.
ZHU, in the same field of endeavor, discloses
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first plurality of directions comprises a respective plurality of antenna beam directions (aforesaid apparatus enters a mode for transmitting one or more beam training sequences; selecting predetermined beam directions towards which the one or more beam training sequences will be transmitted; transmitting the one or more beam training sequences in the selected beam directions: claim 12; multiple input-multiple output (MIMO) spatial multiplexing scheme is used in an effort to increase the spectral efficiency. As a result, simple beamforming techniques with the objective of transmitting: [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of SINGH in view GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK to include the above recited limitations as taught by ZHU. The motivation would be to improve and enhance QoS support for certain applications using announcement or information exchange (ZHU, [0018]).
Regarding claim 11, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. The combination of SINGH and GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK does not expressively disclose: The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second plurality of directions comprises a plurality of selected antenna beam directions from the plurality of antenna beam directions.
ZHU, in the same field of endeavor, discloses
The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second plurality of directions comprises a plurality of selected antenna beam directions from the plurality of antenna beam directions (antenna beam directions with multiple directions: [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of SINGH in view GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK to include the above recited limitations as taught by ZHU. The motivation would be to improve and enhance QoS support for certain applications using announcement or information exchange (ZHU, [0018]).
Regarding claim 12, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. The combination of SINGH and GHANBARINEJAD does not expressively disclose: The apparatus of claim 2 configured to cause the first STA to process a plurality of streams of a Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) from the second STA, the plurality of streams received via the second plurality of directions, respectively.
ZHU, in the same field of endeavor, discloses
The apparatus of claim 2 configured to cause the first STA to process a plurality of streams of a Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) from the second STA, the plurality of streams received via the second plurality of directions, respectively (see fig. 1: STA-A has multiple data streams, AC0, AC1, AC2 and put them in PPDU using physical (PHY) layer convergence procedure ( PLCP) protocol data unit:[0062]-[0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of SINGH in view GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK to include the above recited limitations as taught by ZHU. The motivation would be to improve and enhance QoS support for certain applications using announcement or information exchange (ZHU, [0018]).
Regarding claim 17, SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK teaches the invention of claim 2 as set forth above. The combination of SINGH and GHANBARINEJAD does not expressively disclose: the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first STA comprises a Directional Multi- Gigabit (DMG) STA.
ZHU, in the same field of endeavor, discloses
the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first STA comprises a Directional Multi- Gigabit (DMG) ST (very high speed wireless network capable wireless device: [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of SINGH in view GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK to include the above recited limitations as taught by ZHU. The motivation would be to improve and enhance QoS support for certain applications using announcement or information exchange (ZHU, [0018]).
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK , ZHU and further in view of HAREL et al. (US Pub No. 20150270880 A1; hereinafter as “HAREL”)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK , ZHU teaches claim 12 as above. The combination does not explicitly disclose: the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the PPDU comprises a Single User (SU) PPDU.
HAREL, in the same field of endeavor, discloses: The combination does not explicitly disclose: the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the PPDU comprises a Single User (SU) PPDU (apparatus accessing a channel occupied by a neighboring AP within clear channel assessment (CCA) range: [abstract]; the MIMO transmission is in SU-MIMO protocol: [0132]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK , ZHU to include the above recited limitations as taught by HAREL. The motivation would be to improve and enhance mobility of the wireless device (HAREL, [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK , ZHU teaches claim 12 as above. The combination does not explicitly disclose: the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the PPDU comprises a Multi User (MU) PPDU.
HAREL, in the same field of endeavor, discloses: the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the PPDU comprises a Multi User (MU) PPDU STAs at the MU-MIMO transmission scheme [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD , ZHU to include the above recited limitations as taught by HAREL. The motivation would be to improve and enhance mobility of the wireless device (HAREL, [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK , ZHU teaches claim 12 as above. The combination does not explicitly disclose: the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the plurality of streams comprises a plurality of Multiple-input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) streams.
HAREL, in the same field of endeavor, discloses: the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the plurality of streams comprises a plurality of Multiple-input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) streams (STAs at MIMO transmission scheme: [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of SINGH in view of GHANBARINEJAD, SEOK , ZHU to include the above recited limitations as taught by HAREL. The motivation would be to improve and enhance mobility of the wireless device (HAREL, [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M MOSTAZIR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4785. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm PST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/M Mostazir Rahman/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411