DETAILED ACTION
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Final Office action addresses U.S. reissue application No. 17/396,626 (“626 Reissue Application” or “instant application”). Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date is Aug. 6, 2021 (“626 Actual Filing Date”). Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this reissue application proceeding. The 626 Reissue Application contained, among other things: reissue application declarations by assignee and a preliminary amendment.
The 626 Reissue Application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,374,668 (“668 Patent”) titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING DATA IN A MIMO SYSTEM.” The 668 Patent was filed on Feb. 15, 2018 and assigned by the Office US patent application number 15/897,986 (“986 Application”) and issued on Aug. 6, 2019 with claims 1-21 (“Originally Patented Claims”). Because the instant reissue application was filed within two years after the 668 Patent issued, broadening of claim scope is allowed. See MPEP § 1401 and 35 USC § 251.
On June 29, 2023, the Office mailed a non-final office action (“2023 Non-final Office Action”). On Dec. 29, 2023, Applicant filed a response (“Dec 2023 Response”) to the 2023 Non-final Office Action.
On Feb. 1, 2024, the Office mailed a final office action (“Feb 2024 Final Office Action”). On July 30, 2024, Applicant filed a RCE and a response (“Jul 2024 Response”) to the Feb 2024 Final Office Action.
On Sep. 26, 2024, the Office mailed a non-final office action (“2024 Non-final Office Action”). On Mar. 26, 2025, Applicant filed a response (“Mar 2025 Response”) to the 2024 Non-final Office Action.
On Apr. 17, 2025, the Office mailed a final office action (“Apr 2025 Final Office Action”). On Oct. 17 2025, Applicant filed a response (“Oct 2025 Response”). A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Oct 2025 Response has been entered. The Oct 2025 Response contains, among other things, “REMARKS” (“Oct 2025 Remarks”), and “AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS” (“Oct 2025 Claim Amendment”). The Oct 2025 Claim Amendment does not amend any claims. Because no claim amendment was made in Oct 2025 Claim Amendment and because no new ground of rejection is advanced in the instant office action, the office action is made final.
II. OTHER PROCEEDINGS
This section is that same as that in 2023 Non-final Office Action.
Based upon Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application and after the Examiner's independent review of the 668 patent itself and its prosecution history, the Examiner finds that she cannot locate any ongoing proceeding before the Office or current ongoing litigation. Also based upon the Examiner's independent review of the 668 Patent itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner finds that she cannot locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction.
III. STATUS OF CLAIMS
In light of the above:
Claims 1-21 are currently pending (“Pending Claims”).
Claims 1-21 are examined.
As a result of the instant Office Action:
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
IV. PRIORITY CLAIMS
This section is that same as that in 2023 Non-final Office Action.
Based upon a review of the instant application and 668 Patent, the Examiner finds that the instant application is a reissue of US Patent 10,374,668, which is a continuation of application 14/147,447, filed on Jan. 3, 2014 now Pat. No. 9,900,067, which is continuation of application No. 13/434,681, filed on Mar. 29, 2012, now Pate. No. 8,654,881, which is a continuation of application No. PCT KR2011/001742, filed on Mar. 11, 2011.
The instant application claims the following foreign priorities:
Country Application No. Application Date
KR 10-2010-0022122 2010-03-12
KR 10-2010-0065898 2010-07-08
KR 10-2010-0066458 2010-07-09
KR 10-2010-0068167 2010-07-14
KR 10-2010-0072506 2010-07-27
The priority documents are in the file of parent application 14/147,447. However the above claims of foreign priority have not been perfected (certified English translations of the priority documents have not been provided.)
To the extent that the claims of the instant reissue application are supported by a priority document above, the priority date of the corresponding claims is the earliest date of the priority documents that provide such support.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is not on or after March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions do not apply (to the invention or claims of the instant reissue application). Instead, the earlier ‘First to Invent’ provisions apply.
V. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
This section is that same as that in Apr 2025 Final Office Action.
A. Lexicographic Definitions
After careful review of the original specification and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision the Examiner concludes the Patent Owner is not their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
B. 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Patent Owner, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how she is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
1. Processor: "1: one that processes 2. a: (1) a computer (2) The part of a computer system that operates on data – called also a central processing unit b : a computer program (as a compiler) that puts another program into a form acceptable to the computer " Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
2. Configuration: “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to a hardware configuration or software configuration. [Emphasis added.]” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
3. Base Station: A wireless term. A base station is the fixed device that a mobile radio transceiver (transmitter/receiver) talks to talk to allow a person or mobile device to get connection to the landline phone network, public or private. Newton' s Telecom Dictionary. 14th Expanded Edition, Telecom Books, October 1998.
4. Controller: A device that controls the operation of another device by relaying information to that device, the controller potentially a processor or computer. See “Newton' s Telecom Dictionary. 14th Expanded Edition, Telecom Books, October 1998,” describing a controller as a device that controls another device by relaying information, and also describing the most common form of controller as being a computer.
5. Transceiver: Any device that transmits and receives. See “Newton' s Telecom Dictionary. 14th Expanded Edition, Telecom Books, October 1998,” describing a transmitter as a device that converts signals into electrical impulses.
6. Circuit: The physical connection (or path) of channels, conductors and equipment between two given points through which an electric current may be established. Includes both sending and receiving capabilities. A circuit can also be a network of circuit elements, such as resistors, inductors, capacitors, semiconductors, etc., that performs a specific function. A circuit can also be a closed path through which current can flow. See “Newton' s Telecom Dictionary. 14th Expanded Edition, Telecom Books, October 1998.”
7. Circuitry: “1: the detailed plan or arrangement of an electric circuit. 2: the components of an electric circuit.” Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1994.
C. Claims Not Invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
The Examiner finds that claims 1-7 do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 . For support of this position the Examiner notes the following;
Claims 1-7 are method claims. Claims 1-7 recite neither "step for" nor "means for," nor a generic placeholder for "step for" or "means for." Therefore claims 1-7 fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I. Because claims 1-7 fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I., the Examiner concludes that claims 1-7 do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008) (precedential).
Claims 8-21 are apparatus claims and they do not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 because the functions such as “receiving a first control field” or “receiving a data field” can be performed by programming a computer based on the algorithm/data structure recited in the claims.
D. Non-Functional Descriptive material
MPEP 2111.05 states:
However, USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The rationale behind the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art. Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, in such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
As noted in Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 126 USPQ2d 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied…. While early cases developing this doctrine applied it to claims literally encompassing “printed” materials…. Rather, we have held that a claim limitation is directed to printed matter if it claims the content of information. [Citations and quotations omitted]
Claim limitations directed to the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship are not entitled to patentable weight because such information is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101…. While the doctrine's underlying rationale is in subject matter eligibility, its application has been in analyzing other patentability requirements, including novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102…. [Citations and quotations omitted.]
If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, then the next step is to ascertain whether the printed matter is functionally related to its ‘substrate.’ Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight…. Likewise, where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. [Citations omitted.]
In Ex Parte Mathias, PTAB holds:
Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are:
- a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium,
- a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or
- a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention.
In this office action, non-functional descriptive will be identified and the identified non-functional descriptive material may not be given patentable weight.
VI. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
This section is that same as that in Apr 2025 Final Office Action.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
A. Claims 1-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Nee (US Patent Pub. 2011/0299468) in view of Erceg et al (US Patent Pub. 2011/0032875, hereafter “Erceg”).
Regarding claim 1, Van Nee teaches a wireless communication method, comprising:
receiving a first control field through a channel, wherein the first control field comprises a first set of consecutive bits and tail bits subsequent to the first set of consecutive bits and wherein the first set of consecutive bits indicates a length of user data (“The VHT-SIG-B field 324 may indicate the length of useful data in the Physical Layer Convergence Protocol (PLCP) service data unit (PSDU) (e.g., the length of useful data in the data portion 326).” ¶¶0061, 0069-70, Figs. 3-4 and 6-6A, VHT-SIG B field indicates the length of useful data and includes tail bits) and
receiving a data field comprising the user data through the channel (¶¶0061, 0069-0071, 326 in Fig. 3, Figs. 6-6A),
wherein a number of bits of the first set of consecutive bits varies depending on a bandwidth of the channel (Fig, 4, “For a 20 MHz channel for example, the VHT-SIG-B field 324 may comprise 26 bits, which may be divided into 20 information bits and 6 tail bits. For multi-user applications, the 20 information bits may comprise a 16-bit length field (indicating the length of useful data in the data portion) and a 4-bit modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index.” ¶¶0061, 0069-0071 and Figs. 3-4. Van Nee also discloses “… a block of bits in the VHT SIG-B field 324 may be repeated or copied a number of times for higher bandwidths, such as for 40, 80, and 160 MHz modes.” (¶0070). Even the VHTSIG-B field is repeated, it still indicates a length of user data and it is contiguous because there is no user data in this field.).
To the extent Van Nee does not teach “wherein a number of bits of the first set of consecutive bits varies depending on a bandwidth of the channel,” Van Nee discloses “For a 20 MHz channel for example, the VHT-SIG-B field 324 may comprise 26 bits, which may be divided into 20 information bits and 6 tail bits. For multi-user applications, the 20 information bits may comprise a 16-bit length field (indicating the length of useful data in the data portion) and a 4-bit modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index.”(¶¶0061, 0069-0071 and Figs. 3-4). Van Nee also discloses “… a block of bits in the VHT SIG-B field 324 may be repeated or copied a number of times for higher bandwidths, such as for 40, 80, and 160 MHz modes.” (¶0070, Fig. 9).
In other words, Van Nee discloses the number of bits used to indicate data length varies depending on a bandwidth of the channel. What Van Nee does not expressly teach is that these number of bits indicating data length depending on or varied based on a bandwidth of the channel is contiguous.
In the same field of communication in MIMO wireless communication system, Erceg discloses “a format of second SIG field (e.g. VHT-SIG-B)” with different fields shown in Fig. 22. Erceg also discloses:
[0182] As analogously mentioned above with respect to one possible variant of the first SIG field (e.g., SIG A) of a distributed SIG field, the order of the fields within the second SIG field (e.g., SIG B) of a distributed SIG field may change.
[0183] Certain embodiments may always include the last two fields as being CRC and Tail Bits. Also, the bit widths of fields may be changed as necessary. Also, other fields may be added, and any of above fields may be transmitted in the first SIG field (e.g., SIG A) instead of or in addition to the second SIG field (e.g., SIG B), certain fields and/or bits may be removed entirely from the components of the distributed SIG field, or they may be ordered differently.
[0184] For example, an alternative embodiment for the VHT-SIG-B field contains 48 information bits that may be transmitted as follows:
[0185] Sent using IEEE 802.11a tone mapping, replicated in each 20 MHz channel in bandwidth
[0186] May be sent as 2 OFDM symbols using 6 Mbps IEEE 802.11a rate [0187] May be sent as 1 OFDM symbol using 12 Mbps IEEE 802.11a rate [0188] May also be sent as 1 OFDM symbol using 4 pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) on each tone (also 12 Mbps) [0189] BPSK, 4 PAM or QPSK constellations may be sent with 0 or 90 degree rotation on all symbols
[0190] It is noted that transmitting the various fields such as L-SIG, HT-SIG or VHT-SIG-A/B in accordance with 4-PAM or QPSK modulation can effectuate a doubling of the number of coded bits transmitted within an OFDM symbol (as compared to BPSK). This could be used to transmit additional SIG information without increasing the number of OFDM symbols, or it could be used to reduce the number of OFDM symbols used to transmit a fixed number of bits.
…
[0219] Again, the order of the fields within the second SIG field (e.g., SIG B) of a distributed SIG field may change. Also, the bit widths of fields may be changed as necessary. Also, other fields may be added, and any of above fields may be transmitted in the first SIG field (e.g., SIG A) instead of or in addition to the second SIG field (e.g., SIG B), certain fields and/or bits may be removed entirely from the components of the distributed SIG field, or they may be ordered differently.
-[0182]-[0190] and [0219] of Erceg.
As disclosed by Erceg, the fields length in the SIG A and SIG B can be changed and the fields in SIG A and SIG B can be reordered if necessary. Therefore it would have been obvious to reorder the SIG B field of Van Nee so that the first set of control bits is contiguous and will indicate the length of user data in the method of Van Nee as suggested by Erceg.
Further, in the section of MPEP 2144.04 V.B, “making integral” of separate pieces is obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. In the instant case, grouping the control fields for indicating data lengths into one field in Van Nee is obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art in view of Erceg because whether to group the relevant control fields into one control field is merely engineering or implementation consideration and it is expressly suggested by Erceg.
Regarding claim 2, Van Nee in view of Erceg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first control field consists of the first set of bits, a second set of reserved bits and a third set of tail bits in sequence (Van Nee: ¶¶0061 and 0070, Fig. 4, the set of bits can be divided into first set of bits, a second set of reserved bits and a third set of tail bits in sequence; Erceg: [0182]-[0190] and [0219]).
Regarding claim 3, Van Nee in view Erceg teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the bandwidth of the channel is 20 MHz, the number of bits of the first set of consecutive bits is seventeen (17) bits, a number of bits of the second set of reserved bits is three (3) bits, and a number of bits of the third set of tail bits is six (6) bits (¶¶0061 and Figs. 3-4 of Van Nee; Erceg: [0182]-[0190] and [0219],).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Van Nee in view of Erceg teaches the method of claim 2. However Van Nee does not expressly teach wherein the bandwidth of the channel is 40 MHz, the number of bits of the first set of consecutive bits is nineteen (19) bits, a number of bits of the second set of reserved bits is two (2) bits, and a number of bits of the third set of tail bits is six (6) bits and wherein the bandwidth of the channel is 80 MHz, the number of bits of the first set of consecutive bits is twenty-one (21) bits, a number of bits of the second set of reserved bits is two (2) bits, and a number of bits of the third set of tail bits is six (6) bits.
Van Nee does teach
[0061] FIG. 4 illustrates an example structure of the VHT-SIG-B field 324 and the data portion 326 of the packet in FIG. 3 in more detail. The VHT-SIG-B field 324 may indicate the length of useful data in the Physical Layer Convergence Protocol (PLCP) service data unit (PSDU) (e.g., the length of useful data in the data portion 326). For certain aspects, such as multi-user applications, the VHT-SIG-B field 324 may contain user-specific information (e.g., modulation and coding rate) and may be spatially multiplexed for different STAs. As such, the VHT-SIG-B field 324 may comprise a number of information bits 402 followed by a number of tail bits 404. For a 20 MHz channel for example, the VHT-SIG-B field 324 may comprise 26 bits, which may be divided into 20 information bits and 6 tail bits. For multi-user applications, the 20 information bits may comprise a 16-bit length field (indicating the length of useful data in the data portion) and a 4-bit modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index. For single-user applications, the 20 information bits may comprise a 17-bit length field and 3 reserved bits.
[0070] For certain aspects, a block of bits in the VHT-SIG-B field 324 may be repeated or copied a number of times for higher bandwidths, such as for 40, 80, and 160 MHz modes. This repeating of bits may include both the information bits and the tail bits. Any additional bits for channel bandwidths greater than 20 MHz may be designated as reserved bits. For certain aspects, any reserved bits in the block of bits may also be repeated. Repeating the bits for higher channel bandwidths provides an easy way for the receiver to achieve processing gain via averaging of repeated soft values (e.g., by repeating the tail bits).
-¶¶0061 and 0070 of Van Nee.
As can be seen above, Van Nee expressly disclose the VHT-SIG-B for 20 MHz bandwidth and suggests using more bits for higher bandwidth or repeating VHT-SIG-B for 40MHz (Fig. 9). Erceg also discloses “the bit widths of fields may be changed as necessary” ([0183] and [0219]). Therefore in order to achieve high throughput with increased bandwidth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to increase the number of bits in the first set of bits and using two bits as reserved bits as necessary in Van Nee.
Regarding claim 6, Van Nee in view of Erceg discloses the first control field is a Very-High-Throughput Signal-B (VHT-SIG-B) field (Van Nee, Fig. 4 and Fig. 9, ¶0077; Erceg, [0183]-[0190] and [0219], Figs. 22 and 24) and the first control field comprises two consecutive orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols (Erceg: [0182]-[0190] and [0219]). Using OFDM symbols to transmit data or control information is well known in the art and its advantage is also well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention, to use two consecutive OFDM symbols to represent first control field.
Regarding claim 7, Van Nee in view of Erceg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the length of the user data is dependent on the first set of consecutive bits (Van Nee: ¶¶0061, 0070 and 0077, Fig. 4; Erceg: [0182]-[0190] and [0219]).
Claims 8-14 are the corresponding apparatus claims of claims 1-7. Claims 15-21 are the corresponding device claims of claims 1-7. Van Nee teaches a wireless communication apparatus and device (Figs. 1 and 2) and the functions recited in claims 1-7. Therefore Van Nee in view of Erceg teaches or makes obvious claims 8-21.
VII. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
A. 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues:
Paragraph [0183] of Erceg, however, merely states that "the bit widths of fields may be changed as necessary," which only means that the field lengths within the SIG structure can be adjusted depending on implementation or design needs. Nowhere in Erceg is it disclosed or even suggested that the number of bits of any field varies depending on a bandwidth of the transmission channel. The cited passage only expresses that bit widths may differ as needed for implementation, and such a general statement cannot reasonably be interpreted as teaching or implying a bandwidth-dependent relationship.
-Oct 2025 Remarks, p. 9.
Applicant is arguing the limitation “wherein a number of bits of the first set of consecutive bits varies depending on a bandwidth of the channel.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As can be seen in the rejection above, Van Nee teaches “wherein a number of bits of the first set of bits varies depending on a bandwidth of the channel” because Van Nee discloses “For a 20 MHz channel for example, the VHT-SIG-B field 324 may comprise 26 bits, which may be divided into 20 information bits and 6 tail bits. For multi-user applications, the 20 information bits may comprise a 16-bit length field (indicating the length of useful data in the data portion) and a 4-bit modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index.”(¶¶0061, 0069-0071 and Figs. 3-4) and Van Nee also discloses “… a block of bits in the VHT SIG-B field 324 may be repeated or copied a number of times for higher bandwidths, such as for 40, 80, and 160 MHz modes.” (¶0070, Fig. 9).
In other words, Van Nee discloses the number of bits of the first set of bits varies depending on a bandwidth of the channel. The only limitation that Van Nee does not disclose is that the first set of bits are not consecutive. Erceg teaches that “the bit widths of fields may be changed as necessary” and “they may be ordered differently” ([0183] of Erceg). As disclosed by Erceg, the fields length in the SIG A and SIG B can be changed and the fields in SIG A and SIG B can be reordered if necessary. Therefore it would have been obvious to reorder the SIG B field of Van Nee so that the first set of control bits is contiguous and will indicate the length of user data in the method of Van Nee as suggested by Erceg.
Applicant further argues:
If paragraph [0183] were to be, arguendo, interpreted broadly as the Examiner suggests, such interpretation would lead to an unreasonable result. Specifically, if the mere statement that "the bit widths of fields may be changed as necessary" were understood to mean that each field's bit length varies depending on the channel bandwidth, then all other fields in the SIG structure-such as the MCS, coding, or STBC fields-would likewise have to vary with bandwidth. Erceg, however, provides no indication or rationale for such behavior. The Examiner's position selectively applies that logic only to the "length" bits without any technical justification, rendering the conclusion conclusory and unsupported by the actual disclosure of Erceg.
-Oct 2025 Remarks, p. 9.
Applicant is arguing that based on Erceg, all other fields would likewise have to vary with bandwidth.
The Examiner disagrees.
First, Van Nee only discloses that the first set of bits varies with the bandwidth and whether other set of bits varies with the bandwidth is not relevant to the claimed limitation. In Van Nee, the number of the first set of bits is proportionally higher if the bandwidth is higher.
Second, Van Nee already uses more first set of bits for higher bandwidth and the only limitation missing from Van Nee is that the first set of bits are not consecutive.
Third, Erceg expressly disclose reordering bits if necessary and therefore the first set of bits can be reordered to be consecutive and there are not extra bits introduced and there is no suggestions nor teaching by Van Nee of all other fields in the SIG structure such as the MCS, coding, or STBC field, also vary with bandwidth.
Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
VIII. CONCLUSION
A. Action is made final
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
B. Reissue Application Reminders
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicants are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
C. Suggested Examples: Preventing Both New Matter Rejections & Objections to the Specification in the Future
Applicants are respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicants decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicants to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph.
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph, Applicants are also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicants amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicants are encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicants choose to amend the specification, Applicants are reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicants have any questions on this matter, Applicants are encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
D. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to YUZHEN GE whose telephone number is (571)272-7636. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of reissue 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.
/Yuzhen Ge/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/NICK CORSARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the 668 Patent, or in the prior art.