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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 42-50 and 52 for failing to comply with the written description rejection is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments are addressed by the explanation provided with the 5/11/2026 Advisory Action. Verma teaches implementing puncturing patterns, however Verma does not explicitly teach redundantly transmitting data. Yonge was found to show the benefits of redundantly transmitting data to be known. As explained, the combination of Verma and Yonge shows the breadth of the claims to be obvious.
The Examiner suggested amendments to David Bennett (Reg. No. 32,194) on 8/25. Mr. Bennett stated that he would provide the suggestions to his client. The Examiner has not received any communication from the applicant regarding this case as of morning of 9/14/2026.
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 at least one of a first set of subcarriers of the first resource unit and 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
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.
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
Prosecution Insights