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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s argument regarding the written description rejection are not persuasive. The Examiner has explained in the rejection that demodulation would happen the same way at the receiver regardless of whether or not the data redundantly modulated by the transmitter. The applicant does not disclose a special technique for “redundantly” demodulating as the invention would clearly only demodulate the redundantly modulated data once when it is received. The applicant is ignoring the fact that the transmitter and receiver serve and perform different functions and limitations cannot just be used interchangeably between the two.
Regarding the prior art, the Yum reference is no longer used so the arguments are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 42-50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant did not disclose “redundantly” demodulating a symbol from a second set of subcarriers. Instead, the applicant disclosed demodulating a symbol from a second set of subcarriers that happened to be redundantly modulated when it was transmitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 42, 44-50, and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0141570 by Verma et al.
As to claim 42, Verma teaches a method, performed by a wireless receiver (paragraph 89), of controlling wireless transmissions in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: determining mapping of user data to a plurality of resource units comprising a first resource unit and a second resource unit (paragraph 104, the particular client has allocated more than one resource unit), wherein the mapping is based on puncturing patterns such that at least one resource unit of the plurality of resource units is muted (paragraph 57, the interfering channels are punctured so that no data is carried) and at least one of the first and second resource units is not subject to puncturing (paragraph 104, the resource units allocated to the client are not punctured); and receiving the user data using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) (paragraph 71); and demodulating a symbol of the user data from a first set of subcarriers of the first resource unit and redundantly demodulating the symbol from a second set of subcarriers of the second resource unit (paragraph 89, anything in the resource units that are specified by the puncture pattern will be demodulated including any redundant data because demodulation does not change based on the content of the data).
As to claim 52, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 42.
As to claim 44, the Abstract explains how the puncture pattern is based on interference from other technologies.
As to claim 45, see paragraph 19.
As to claim 46, see paragraph 127.
As to claim 47, see paragraph 122.
As to claims 48 and 49, see paragraph 65.
As to claim 50, see paragraph 57.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 34, 36-41, 51, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0141570 by Verma et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0268200 by Yonge, III et al.
As to claim 34, Verma teaches a method, performed by a wireless transmitter (paragraph 71), of controlling wireless transmissions in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: determining mapping of user data to a plurality of resource units comprising a first resource unit and a second resource unit (paragraph 104, the particular client has allocated more than one resource unit), wherein the mapping is based on puncturing patterns such that at least one resource unit of the plurality of resource units is muted (paragraph 57, the interfering channels are punctured so that no data is carried) and at least one of the first and second resource units is not subject to puncturing (paragraph 104, the resource units allocated to the client are not punctured); and transmitting the user data using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) modulation (paragraph 71) on a shared wireless medium having a bandwidth comprising the first resource unit and the second resource unit (paragraph 106); however, Verma does not teach that the transmitting comprises: modulating a symbol of the user data onto a first set of subcarriers of the first resource unit and redundantly modulating the symbol onto a second set of subcarriers of the second resource unit.
Yonge teaches transmitting the user data using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) modulation on a shared wireless medium having a bandwidth comprising a first resource unit and a second resource unit, wherein the transmitting comprises: modulating a symbol of the user data onto a first set of subcarriers of a first resource unit and redundantly modulating the symbol onto a second set of subcarriers of a second resource unit (paragraph 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data transmission art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Verma regarding using puncturing patterns to transfer data with the teachings of Yonge regarding redundantly modulating symbols on to subcarriers of resource units because both concepts relate to OFDM transmissions and the claims do not coherently tie the concept of determining the mapping to the transmission of the user data; the claims determine a mapping but they never do anything with the mapping. The combination shows the incoherent combination claimed by the applicant.
As to claim 36, the Abstract explains how the puncture pattern is based on interference from other technologies.
As to claim 37, see paragraph 70.
As to claim 38, see paragraph 122.
As to claims 39 and 40, see paragraph 65.
As to claim 41, see paragraph 57.
As to claim 51, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 34.
As to claim 53, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claims 34 and 42.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454