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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/07/2026 regarding claims 1-3, 6-12 and 15-24 in the remarks are fully considered but not persuasive.
(i) Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 10 and 20 (as well as dependent claims 3, 12, 19 and 20) over the combination of Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang provides no prima facie evidence of obviousness.
(i) (Response) For the purpose of clarity, examiner has rewritten the reason(s) and motivation to combine the respective secondary reference(s) with that of the primary reference when addressing applicant’s claimed invention. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 10 and 20 (as well as the respective dependent claims 3, 12, 19 and 20) as examiner provides reason(s) for applying the respective prior art(s) and the motivation to combine.
(ii) Applicant argues that the application of the references is mainly based on impermissible hindsight level by outlining two viewpoints – first, from a technical standpoint, there is no support for the combination, and second, the combination is impermissibly built by using the claims as a template for their own reconstruction (please see pages 2-3 under arguments and remarks).
(ii) (Response) For similar arguments as provided above for section (i)(response), examiner has rewritten the reason(s) and provided motivation to combine the respective references. For example, considering the missing limitation(s) of inserting padding bits such that a padded PPDU size is an integer multiple of an error correction code length, and wherein the PPDU sizes are aligned with corresponding code words (CW) as recited in the respective independent claims, examiner indicated in the previous Office Action these limitation(s) were not taught by the primary reference Zhang but addressed by Song (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0167319). Examiner relied on figures 22-24 as well as paragraphs [0205], [0207], [0233] in addressing the limitation(s). One of the main reason(s) examiner believes a person of ordinary skill in the art will be inclined to apply this prior art is that, according to paragraph [0005] for example, applying padding bits so that the subframe becomes an integer multiple of a codeword, ensures that “the boundary of the codeword and the boundary of the subframe can be matched” (please see paragraph [0005] of the prior art as providing support for the reason(s) to combine the prior art). Paragraph [0005] further states that “when performing HARQ retransmission with an MPDU unit, hybrid automatic repeat request 9HARQ) combing may be performed in the PHY of the receiving terminal” as another reason to applying such prior art. Other section(s) of the prior art also suggests the benefit/motivation to applying padding would be to make it easier for the transmitting station to information which codeword to perform buffering and/or HARQ combining in the PHY layer of the receiving STA (please see paragraph [0230] of Song). Thus, examiner maintains that the prior art Song is combinable with the other reference(s).
(iii) Applicant also argues that the previously applied Yang (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0084654) does not provide a motivation to combine especially since the other references is based on solving a problem that does not exist in the systems of Zhang, Song and Pandey (please see page 3 under arguments and remarks). Applicant also argues that unlike Yang, the references of Zhang and Song are not Probabilistic and Amplitude Shaping (PAS) systems and accordingly have no unknown packet length and thus the references are unrelated (please see page 3 under arguments and remarks).
(iii) (Response) Per response provided in section(ii) under response, examiner believe that Yang addresses the problems existing in the systems of Zhang, Song and Pandey. In other words, as indicated in section(ii)(response) as well as 103 rejections indicated below, examiner has provided reason(s) and motivation to combine the respective reference(s) of Zhang, Song and Pandey. The reference(s) of Zhang, Song and Panday, however, fail to address the limitation(s) of using a transmission vector (TX VECTOR), which is passed to a physical layer from a higher layer within the wireless apparatus, and which includes each individual medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) size in the frame. Examiner relied on paragraph [0176] to address the above limitation(s) (please see rejection(s) below). The purpose of the TX/transmission vector (as disclosed in Yang) is to add additional bits within the packet to indicate to the receiving device the locations of the boundaries between the MPDUs (please see paragraph [0176] of Yang). Therefore, based on the information indicating the location of boundaries of the MPDUs, the receiver will be able to decode the respective MPDUs (please see paragraph [0197] of Yang). Furthermore, applicant’s arguments that the system as described collectively in Zhang, Song and Pandey is different from Yang (i.e. PAS) is not persuasive especially since in a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, one of the requirements when combining references is whether the references must be in the same field of endeavor, which they are. In other words, the reference(s) of Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang each disclose the generation of MPDU frames even though the process of generating the respective frames are different. Therefore, examiner maintains that all the limitation(s) of applicant’s claimed invention are addressed and the reference(s) are combinable especially since the reason(s) and motivation are provided as shown below.
(iv) Lastly, applicant also argues that without proper motivation to add Yang, the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for all limitation(s) of independent claims 1, 10 and 20 (please see page 4 under arguments and remarks).
(iv) (Response) A motivation for implementing the TX vector (as disclosed in Yang) to track the boundaries of the respective MPDUs would be to facilitate the successful decoding by a receiving device (please see paragraph [0033] of Yang).
Response to Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 12, 19, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0389259) in view of Song (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0167319) and further in view of Pandey (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0076532) and Yang (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0084654).
As per claim 1:
Zhang teaches a method to transmit data from a wireless apparatus (see paragraph [0008] teaches a method for generating a physical layer (PHY) data unit for transmission in a wireless local area network (WLAN)), the method comprising:
inserting padding bits into at least one physical protocol data unit (PPDU) of a plurality of PDUs (see Figure 1, paragraph [0028], AP 114 comprise of a MAC layer processor 126. Said MAC layer processor 126 includes a padding unit that is configured to determine a number of padding bits to be added to an MPDU and to add the determined number of padding bits to the MPDU, please see paragraph [0032]. Figure 2 shows an aggregated-MPDU (i.e., A-MPDU 208) comprising of A-MPDU subframes. Each A-MPDU subframe comprise of an MPDU with padding and thus plurality of PDUs) to be encoded with an error correction code (paragraph [0036] explicitly states: “…some padding bits are added to the PHY data unit prior to PHY processor 130 performing FEC encoding of the PHY data unit”. Said PHY data unit refers to said MPDU, please see paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
Zhang does not clearly teach such that a padded PPDU size is an integer multiple of an error correction code length, wherein each PPDU in a frame of PPDUs to be transmitted comprises a PPDU size that is an integer multiple of the error correction code length, and wherein PPDU sizes are aligned with corresponding code words (CW).
Song teaches such that a padded PPDU size is an integer multiple of an error correction code length (see Figures 22-24, paragraph [0230] explicitly states “A size of a subframe include an MPDU may be defined to be configured in units of an integer multiple of a codeword length”. Note: Paragraph [0207] disclose HARQ retransmission may be performed in units of codeword at the PHY level. Paragraph [0205] also disclose said HARQ uses FEC scheme and thus it is evident that said codeword are coded using FEC), wherein each PPDU in a frame of PPDUs to be transmitted comprises a PPDU size that is an integer multiple of the error correction code length (see Figure 23 for example, each MPDU is an integer multiple of the codeword. For example, for subframe 1, size of MPDU is N1 * Lcodeword. Likewise, for subframe 2, size of MPDU is N2 * Lcodeword), and wherein PPDU sizes are aligned with corresponding code words (CW) (paragraph [0233] explicitly states: “…all MPDUs included in a PPDU may include a same number of codewords. In other words, the length of each subframe constituting the A-MPDU included in the PPDU may be the same, and the length of the subframe may be an integer multiple of the codeword length”. In other words, each of the MPDUs may have the same multiple codeword size and thus aligned with corresponding codeword).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the frame format comprising a plurality of subframes, each with a size equal to an integer multiple of a codeword length (as disclosed in Song) into Zhang as a way of ensuring that the boundary of the codeword and the boundary of the subframe can be matched (please see paragraph [0005] of Song). Therefore, by applying padding with each frame size being an integer multiple of a codeword, makes it easier for the transmitting station to information which codeword to perform buffering and/or HARQ combining in the PHY layer of the receiving STA (please see paragraph [0230] of Song).
Zhang and Song do not clearly disclose and transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code.
Pandey teaches and transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code (see paragraph [0055], node A transmits FEC frames on the physical link to the node B. Paragraph [0057] disclose at node A, the encoder 584 performs bit encoding. The encoded bits are then combined with OAM bits and parity bits at the multiplexer to form FEC frames. The FEC are then provided to the encoder 586 for FEC encoding. Thus, it is evident that the FEC frames are FEC encoded).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the encoding of frames prior to transmission (as disclosed in Pandey) (such as forward error correction encoding) into Zhang and Song as a way of improving the quality of point-to-point communications across the link (please see paragraph [0044] of Pandey). Therefore, applying forward error correction (FEC) codes have the ability to detect bit errors and fix the bit errors without requiring retransmission (please see paragraph [0045] of Pandey).
The combination of Zhang, Song and Pandey do not clearly teach using a transmission vector (TX VECTOR), which is passed to a physical layer from a higher layer within the wireless apparatus, and which includes each individual medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) size in the frame.
Yang teaches using a transmission vector (TX VECTOR), which is passed to a physical layer from a higher layer within the wireless apparatus, and which includes each individual medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) size in the frame (see paragraph [0176], first table M1, includes each of the MPDUs and their respective bit positions of the respective boundaries between MPDUs in the A-MPDU. The first table M1 is passed from the MAC layer to the PHY layer in the form of a transmit (Tx) vector).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the use of transmit (Tx) vector indicating the first M1 table (as disclosed in Yang) into Zhang, Song and Pandey as a way of providing to the physical layer information of the each MPDU such as bit positions of a plurality of respective boundaries between the MPDUs in the A-MPDU and the identification of a length of each MPDU (please see paragraph [0176] of Yang). Therefore, motivation for implementing the TX vector to indicate track the boundaries of the respective MPDUs would be to facilitate the successful decoding by a receiving device (please see paragraph [0033] of Yang).
As per claim 3:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey and Yang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein inserting padding bits into at least one PPDU of the plurality of PPDUs comprises inserting padding bits into at least one MPDU in an aggregated MPDU (A-MPDU) frame (Zhang, Figure 2 shows an aggregated-MPDU (i.e., A-MPDU 208) comprising of A-MPDU subframes. Each A-MPDU subframe comprise of an MPDU with padding and thus plurality of PDUs).
As per claim 10:
Zhang teaches a wireless apparatus comprising circuitry (see Figure 1, access point 114 comprising network interface 122), including a transmitter, a receiver (see Figure 1, PHY 130 comprising TX/RX 134-1 to 134-3), a processor (see Figure 1, host 118), and memory (see paragraph [0030], host processor 118 includes processor configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in a memory device), to transmit data, the wireless apparatus configured to:
insert padding bits into at least one physical protocol data unit (PPDU) of a plurality of PPDUs (see Figure 1, paragraph [0028], AP 114 comprise of a MAC layer processor 126. Said MAC layer processor 126 includes a padding unit that is configured to determine a number of padding bits to be added to an MPDU and to add the determined number of padding bits to the MPDU, please see paragraph [0032]. Figure 2 shows an aggregated-MPDU (i.e., A-MPDU 208) comprising of A-MPDU subframes. Each A-MPDU subframe comprise of an MPDU with padding and thus plurality of PDUs) to be encoded with an error correction code (paragraph [0036] explicitly states: “…some padding bits are added to the PHY data unit prior to PHY processor 130 performing FEC encoding of the PHY data unit”. Said PHY data unit refers to said MPDU, please see paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
Zhang does not clearly teach such that a padded PPDU size is an integer multiple of an error correction code length, wherein each PPDU in a frame of PPDUs to be transmitted comprises a PPDU size that is an integer multiple of the error correction code length, and wherein PPDU sizes are aligned with corresponding code words (CW).
Song teaches such that a padded PPDU size is an integer multiple of an error correction code length (see Figures 22-24, paragraph [0230] explicitly states “A size of a subframe include an MPDU may be defined to be configured in units of an integer multiple of a codeword length”. Note: Paragraph [0207] disclose HARQ retransmission may be performed in units of codeword at the PHY level. Paragraph [0205] also disclose said HARQ uses FEC scheme and thus it is evident that said codeword are coded using FEC), wherein each PPDU in a frame of PPDUs to be transmitted comprises a PPDU size that is an integer multiple of the error correction code length (see Figure 23 for example, each MPDU is an integer multiple of the codeword. For example, for subframe 1, size of MPDU is N1 * Lcodeword. Likewise, for subframe 2, size of MPDU is N2 * Lcodeword), and wherein PPDU sizes are aligned with corresponding code words (CW) (paragraph [0233] explicitly states: “…all MPDUs included in a PPDU may include a same number of codewords. In other words, the length of each subframe constituting the A-MPDU included in the PPDU may be the same, and the length of the subframe may be an integer multiple of the codeword length”. In other words, each of the MPDUs may have the same multiple codeword size and thus aligned with corresponding codeword).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the frame format comprising a plurality of subframes, each with a size equal to an integer multiple of a codeword length (as disclosed in Song) into Zhang as a way of ensuring that the boundary of the codeword and the boundary of the subframe can be matched (please see paragraph [0005] of Song). Therefore, by applying padding with each frame size being an integer multiple of a codeword, makes it easier for the transmitting station to information which codeword to perform buffering and/or HARQ combining in the PHY layer of the receiving STA (please see paragraph [0230] of Song).
Zhang and Song do not clearly disclose and transmit the frame encoded by the error correction code.
Pandey teaches and transmit the frame encoded by the error correction code (see paragraph [0055], node A transmits FEC frames on the physical link to the node B. Paragraph [0057] disclose at node A, the encoder 584 performs bit encoding. The encoded bits are then combined with OAM bits and parity bits at the multiplexer to form FEC frames. The FEC are then provided to the encoder 586 for FEC encoding. Thus, it is evident that the FEC frames are FEC encoded).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the encoding of frames prior to transmission (as disclosed in Pandey) (such as forward error correction encoding) into Zhang and Song as a way of improving the quality of point-to-point communications across the link (please see paragraph [0044] of Pandey). Therefore, applying forward error correction (FEC) codes have the ability to detect bit errors and fix the bit errors without requiring retransmission (please see paragraph [0045] of Pandey).
The combination of Zhang, Song and Pandey do not clearly teach using a transmission vector (TX VECTOR), which is passed to a physical layer from a higher layer within the wireless apparatus, and which includes each medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) size in the frame.
Yang teaches using a transmission vector (TX VECTOR), which is passed to a physical layer from a higher layer within the wireless apparatus, and which includes each individual medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) size in the frame (see paragraph [0176], first table M1, includes each of the MPDUs and their respective bit positions of the respective boundaries between MPDUs in the A-MPDU. The first table M1 is passed from the MAC layer to the PHY layer in the form of a transmit (Tx) vector).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the use of transmit (Tx) vector indicating the first M1 table (as disclosed in Yang) into Zhang, Song and Pandey as a way of providing to the physical layer information of the each MPDU such as bit positions of a plurality of respective boundaries between the MPDUs in the A-MPDU and the identification of a length of each MPDU (please see paragraph [0176] of Yang). Therefore, motivation for implementing the TX vector to indicate track the boundaries of the respective MPDUs would be to facilitate the successful decoding by a receiving device (please see paragraph [0033] of Yang).
Claim 12 is rejected in the same scope as claim 3.
As per claim 19:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey and Yang teaches the wireless apparatus of claim 10, wherein the wireless apparatus is one of a wireless station or a wireless access point (Zhang, see figure 1, access point 114).
As per claim 20:
Zhang teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising
instructions which when executed by a computer cause the computer to carry out the method (see Figure 1, access point 114 comprise of host 118. Said host 118 comprise of processor for executing machine readable instructions stored in a memory device, please see paragraph [0030]) comprising:
inserting padding bits into at least one physical protocol data unit (PPDU) of a plurality of PPDUs (see Figure 1, paragraph [0028], AP 114 comprise of a MAC layer processor 126. Said MAC layer processor 126 includes a padding unit that is configured to determine a number of padding bits to be added to an MPDU and to add the determined number of padding bits to the MPDU, please see paragraph [0032]. Figure 2 shows an aggregated-MPDU (i.e., A-MPDU 208) comprising of A-MPDU subframes. Each A-MPDU subframe comprise of an MPDU with padding and thus plurality of PDUs) to be encoded with an error correction code (paragraph [0036] explicitly states: “…some padding bits are added to the PHY data unit prior to PHY processor 130 performing FEC encoding of the PHY data unit”. Said PHY data unit refers to said MPDU, please see paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
Zhang does not clearly teach such that a padded PPDU size is an integer multiple of an error correction code length, wherein each PDU in a frame of PPDUs to be transmitted comprises a PPDU size that is an integer multiple of the error correction code length, and wherein PPDU sizes are aligned with corresponding code words (CW).
Song teaches such that a padded PPDU size is an integer multiple of an error correction code length (see Figures 22-24, paragraph [0230] explicitly states “A size of a subframe include an MPDU may be defined to be configured in units of an integer multiple of a codeword length”. Note: Paragraph [0207] disclose HARQ retransmission may be performed in units of codeword at the PHY level. Paragraph [0205] also disclose said HARQ uses FEC scheme and thus it is evident that said codeword are coded using FEC), wherein each PPDU in a frame of PPDUs to be transmitted comprises a PPDU size that is an integer multiple of the error correction code length (see Figure 23 for example, each MPDU is an integer multiple of the codeword. For example, for subframe 1, size of MPDU is N1 * Lcodeword. Likewise, for subframe 2, size of MPDU is N2 * Lcodeword), and wherein PPDU sizes are aligned with corresponding code words (CW) (paragraph [0233] explicitly states: “…all MPDUs included in a PPDU may include a same number of codewords. In other words, the length of each subframe constituting the A-MPDU included in the PPDU may be the same, and the length of the subframe may be an integer multiple of the codeword length”. In other words, each of the MPDUs may have the same multiple codeword size and thus aligned with corresponding codeword).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the frame format comprising a plurality of subframes, each with a size equal to an integer multiple of a codeword length (as disclosed in Song) into Zhang as a way of ensuring that the boundary of the codeword and the boundary of the subframe can be matched (please see paragraph [0005] of Song). Therefore, by applying padding with each frame size being an integer multiple of a codeword, makes it easier for the transmitting station to information which codeword to perform buffering and/or HARQ combining in the PHY layer of the receiving STA (please see paragraph [0230] of Song).
Zhang and Song do not clearly disclose and transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code.
Pandey teaches and transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code (see paragraph [0055], node A transmits FEC frames on the physical link to the node B. Paragraph [0057] disclose at node A, the encoder 584 performs bit encoding. The encoded bits are then combined with OAM bits and parity bits at the multiplexer to form FEC frames. The FEC are then provided to the encoder 586 for FEC encoding. Thus, it is evident that the FEC frames are FEC encoded).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the encoding of frames prior to transmission (as disclosed in Pandey) (such as forward error correction encoding) into Zhang and Song as a way of improving the quality of point-to-point communications across the link (please see paragraph [0044] of Pandey). Therefore, applying forward error correction (FEC) codes have the ability to detect bit errors and fix the bit errors without requiring retransmission (please see paragraph [0045] of Pandey).
The combination of Zhang, Song and Pandey do not clearly teach using a transmission vector (TX VECTOR), which is passed to a physical layer from a higher layer within the wireless apparatus, and which includes each medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) size in the frame.
Yang teaches using a transmission vector (TX VECTOR), which is passed to a physical layer from a higher layer within the wireless apparatus, and which includes each individual medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) size in the frame (see paragraph [0176], first table M1, includes each of the MPDUs and their respective bit positions of the respective boundaries between MPDUs in the A-MPDU. The first table M1 is passed from the MAC layer to the PHY layer in the form of a transmit (Tx) vector).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the use of transmit (Tx) vector indicating the first M1 table (as disclosed in Yang) into Zhang, Song and Pandey as a way of providing to the physical layer information of the each MPDU such as bit positions of a plurality of respective boundaries between the MPDUs in the A-MPDU and the identification of a length of each MPDU (please see paragraph [0176] of Yang). Therefore, motivation for implementing the TX vector to indicate track the boundaries of the respective MPDUs would be to facilitate the successful decoding by a receiving device (please see paragraph [0033] of Yang).
As per claim 22:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey and Yang teaches the wireless apparatus of claim 10.
Zhang, Pandey and Yang do not clearly teach wherein the PDUs in the frame have various lengths.
Song teaches wherein the PDUs in the frame have various lengths (see paragraph [0234] and figure 23, the length of each subframe constituting the A-MPDU included in the PPDU may NOT be the same, and the length of each subframe may be an integer multiple of the codeword length).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the frame format comprising a plurality of subframes, each with a size equal to an integer multiple of a codeword length (as disclosed in Song) into Zhang as a way of ensuring that the boundary of the codeword and the boundary of the subframe can be matched (please see paragraph [0005] of Song). Therefore, by applying padding with each frame size being an integer multiple of a codeword, makes it easier for the transmitting station to information which codeword to perform buffering and/or HARQ combining in the PHY layer of the receiving STA (please see paragraph [0230] of Song).
5. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey, Yang and Kharkunou (US PG Pub. No. 2014/0281797).
As per claim 2:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the error correction code comprises a low density parity check (LDPC) code.
Kharkunou teaches wherein the error correction code comprises a low density parity check (LDPC) code (see paragraph [0017], LPDC encoder can generate a frame of a number of bits and parity. The LDPC encoder can generate normal frames of 64,800 bits in length using code rates such as 2/3, ¾, 4/5, etc.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the LDPC encoding (as disclosed in Kharkunou) into Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang as a way of generating parity bits through parallel accumulation (please see paragraph [0032] of Kharkunou).
Claim 11 is rejected in the same scope as claim 2.
6. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey, Yang and Noh (US Patent No. 10,863,437), hereinafter referred to as Noh’437.
As per claim 6:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code comprises signaling each PPDU size in a preamble of a wireless transmission.
Noh’437 teaches wherein transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code (see Col 9, lines 28-33, encoder 300 receives and encodes data. Said encoder may include an FEC encoder which includes LDPC encoder) comprises signaling each PDU size in a preamble of a wireless transmission (see Col 21, lines 9-18, disclose a WU Preamble 1619 includes a PPDU Length indication 1635A for indicating a length of the respective WU packets 1600A and 1600B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the preamble (as disclosed in Noh’437) into Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang as a way of determining the number of OFDM data symbols in the PPDU (please see Col 18, lines 22-33 of Noh’437).
Claim 15 is rejected in the same scope as claim 6.
7. Claims 7-9 and 16-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey, Yang and Chen (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0045151), hereinafter referred to as Chen’151.
As per claim 7:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code comprises using an extra symbol segment field in a preamble of a wireless transmission.
Chen’151 teaches wherein transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code comprises using an extra symbol segment field in a preamble of a wireless transmission (see Figure 10, the preamble portion 1004 comprise of U-SIG field 1016 which includes “additional signaling field(s)” 1062 for indicating information such as “an LDPC extra symbol segment” (such as 1 bit), a “Pre-FEC padding factor” (such as 2 bit)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the additional signaling field within the preamble (as disclosed in Chen’151) into Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang as a way of providing one or more indicators regarding spatial reuse (please see paragraph [0115]) of Chen’151).
As per claim 8:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey, Yang and Chen’151 teaches the method of claim 7.
The combination of Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang do not teach wherein the extra symbol segment field comprises a low density parity check extra symbol segment field.
Chen’151 teaches wherein the extra symbol segment field comprises a low density parity check extra symbol segment field (see Figure 10, the preamble portion 1004 comprise of U-SIG field 1016 which includes “additional signaling field(s)” 1062 for indicating information such as “an LDPC extra symbol segment” (such as 1 bit), a “Pre-FEC padding factor” (such as 2 bit)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the additional signaling field within the preamble (as disclosed in Chen’151) into Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang as a way of providing one or more indicators regarding spatial reuse (please see paragraph [0115]) of Chen’151).
As per claim 9:
Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang teaches the method of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code to a wireless receiver comprises transmitting a pre-forward error correction padding factor field in a preamble of a wireless transmission.
Chen’151 teaches wherein transmitting the frame encoded by the error correction code to a wireless receiver comprises transmitting a pre-forward error correction padding factor field in a preamble of a wireless transmission (see Figure 10, the preamble portion 1004 comprise of U-SIG field 1016 which includes “additional signaling field(s)” 1062 for indicating information such as “an LDPC extra symbol segment” (such as 1 bit), a “Pre-FEC padding factor” (such as 2 bit)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the additional signaling field within the preamble (as disclosed in Chen’151) into Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang as a way of providing one or more indicators regarding spatial reuse (please see paragraph [0115]) of Chen’151).
Claim 16 is rejected in the same scope as claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected in the same scope as claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected in the same scope as claim 9.
8. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey, Yang and Kang (US Patent No. 6,615,382).
As per claim 23:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Panday and Yang teaches the wireless apparatus of claim 10 with the exception of:
wherein the wireless apparatus is configured to select the error correction code among a plurality of error correction codes according to the length of each error correction code in the plurality of error correction codes and according to each size of PDUs to be transmitted in the frame.
Kang teaches wherein the wireless apparatus is configured to select the error correction code among a plurality of error correction codes according to the length of each error correction code in the plurality of error correction codes and according to each size of PDUs to be transmitted in the frame (see Col 10, lines 4-27, discloses selecting FECs 62c, 6365c and 67c such that the ratio of their respective lengths to the ratio of the length of the DLC-PDU 68 is larger than the ratio of the length of the FEC 52c to the entire length of the payload of the DLC-PDU 55).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the encoding ratio (as disclosed in Kang) into Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang as a way of guaranteeing optimal performance and a minimum cell delay time (please see Col 10, lines 33-38 of Kang).
9. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey, Yang and Shi (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0200749).
As per claim 24:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey and Yang teaches the wireless apparatus of claim 10 with the exception of:
wherein the wireless apparatus is configured to select the error correction code, which minimizes the number of bits for alignment padding.
Shi teaches wherein the wireless apparatus is configured to select the error correction code, which minimizes the number of bits for alignment padding (see paragraph [0035], after determining the number of information bits and other parameters including PHY rate/BW, the parameters are used to determine integer number of LDPC codewords to be transmitted as well as the length of the codewords to be used. Shortening bits are then calculated and used as padding to the data bits).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Shi into Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang. The motivation for doing so would be to enable the receiver to derive the pertinent LDPC parameters from the number of information bits (please see paragraph [0036] of Shi).
10. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey, Yang and Park (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0195302).
As per claim 21:
Zhang in view of Song and further in view of Pandey and Yang teaches the wireless apparatus of claim 10, wherein the frame is an aggregated MPDU (A-MPDU) frame (Zhang, see Figure 2, paragraph [0067], A-MPDU 208 includes a plurality of A-MPDU subframes 212. Thus, it is evident that said A-MPDU 208 is an aggregated MPDU frame).
The combination of Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang do not clearly teach and wherein the TX VECTOR includes an A-MPDU length.
Park teaches and wherein the TX VECTOR includes an A-MPDU length (paragraph [0107], explicitly states: “The MAC layer of the transmitter transmits Nsym, L_ampdu_x, MCS per user and PSDU per user to the PHY layer through the TXVECTOR. The PHY layer of the transmitter inserts a PHY pad by Npad_x and inserts a tail pad having the size of 6*Nes according to the results of the following formula”. See paragraph [0088], L-ampdu_x is the length of A-MPDU of a user x (byte unit). Figure 19 shows the A-MPDUs are formed within a PPDU frame).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the use of TX VECTOR (as disclosed in Park) into Zhang, Song, Pandey and Yang as a way of enabling the PHY layer (such as the receiver side) to restore the data using the length information provided (please see paragraph [0051] of Park). Therefore, by knowing the accurate length of the frame, there is no need to perform additional delimiter matching in a MAC protocol (please see paragraph [0051] of Park).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE AKWASI MENSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
PRINCE AKWASI. MENSAH
Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/PRINCE A MENSAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights