DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. This Application is the bypass application of an international application that claims a foreign priority to a Chinese application filed on 10 Apr 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 8 Dec 20222 and 26 Sept 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendments to the independent claims have been considered but are unpersuasive. In particular, Huang teaches the most recent claim amendments. The claim amendments provided in the Reply appear directed to the subject matter found in table 2 of the disclosure. Spec., ¶210 (“controller ID” column). Figure 7 of Huang teaches the subject matter of table 2 in the disclosed invention. In particular, operating mode (OM) 725 has a control ID value of “1” and the values 755/760 have a control ID value between 7 and 15 for extensions. Huang, figure 7. Regarding the combination of references cited, both Ryu and Huang teach an initial 2-bit field for indicating channel bandwidth. And Huang also teaches an additional 1 bit in a field extension. Huang, ¶¶103, 106-107. The subfields 755 and 760 are explicitly used to “include extended control information.” Huang, ¶89. As a result, the claimed invention remains obvious in view of Ryu and Huang.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US 20210385006) in view of Huang (US 20210136605).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 21, Ryu teaches a negotiation method, a communications apparatus, and a chip, serving as an initiator for operating mode OM negotiation, comprise:
sending, by an initiator for operating mode negotiation, an operating mode indication (OMI) carried in a control subfield to a responder (Ryu, ¶268 – transceiver 2830 sends IEEE 802.11be packets; Ryu, figure 23 and ¶226 – in step s2303 and 2306, second STA sends EHT operating mode (OM) control field to first STA),
wherein the control subfield comprises a first control subfield and a second control subfield (Ryu, ¶228 and figure 24 – control field includes the subfields displayed in figure 24);
the first control subfield is an OMI basic indication subfield (Ryu, ¶230 – channel bandwidth subfield 2410) . . .
a number of bits of first channel width indication information that is in control information corresponding to the first control subfield and that indicates the channel width is 2 (Ryu, ¶190 and figure 20 – channel bandwidth field in prior art is 2 bits [ the channel bandwidth fields in figures 21 and 24 are the same as the prior art]]); . . . and
a channel width range jointly indicated by the first channel width indication information and the second channel width indication information is 20 MHz to 320 MHz. Ryu, ¶¶213, 230 (subfield 2410).
Ryu does not explicitly teach “the second control subfield is an OMI extension indication subfield; wherein a value of a control identifier corresponding to the first control subfield is 1, and a value of a control identifier corresponding to the second control subfield is any one of 7 to 15; the first control subfield and the second subfield jointly indicate an enhanced OMI” or (2) “a number of bits of second channel width indication information that is in control information corresponding to the second control subfield and that indicates the channel width is 1.” However, Huang extends the channel bandwidth, so that it can indicate up to 320 MHz. Huang, ¶¶29, 102. In particular, one additional bit is added to the BW subfield. Id. at ¶103. As a result, the total number of bits indicating channel bandwidth is 3 bits. Id. at ¶117. The original channel bandwidth field is 2 bits in length. Id. at figure 10 and ¶97 (bits B3 and B4 of the OM control subfield). To provide the additional bit to indicate channel bandwidth, Huang provides several possibilities, including adding the additional bits after the existing encoding. Id. at ¶¶35, 106 (extension fields are sets of contiguous bits after the existing encoding). Specifically, in regards to the three limitations identified above as missing from Ryu, Huang ‘605 teaches the following:
“the second control subfield is an OMI extension indication subfield” (Huang ‘605, ¶97 - figure 10 shows legacy OM subfields, which are associated with the control information 725 in figure 7; Huang ‘605, ¶143 – figure 12 shows an extension using the bits in 755 of figure 7)
wherein a value of a control identifier corresponding to the first control subfield is 1, and a value of a control identifier corresponding to the second control subfield is any one of 7 to 15 (Huang, figure 7 and ¶¶83, 89-90 – values in “control ID value” column for OM 725, Reserved 755, and ONES 760);
“the first control subfield and the second subfield jointly indicate an enhanced OMI” (Huang ‘605, figure 10 – two bits, B3 and B4, in legacy channel width field; Huang ‘605, ¶¶98, 117 – an additional bit is used to extend the channel width to 3 bits total); and
“a number of bits of second channel width indication information that is in control information corresponding to the second control subfield and that indicates the channel width is 1.” Huang ‘605, ¶¶29, 102 (1 additional bit is used to extend Channel Width).
At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the OM control field, taught by Ryu, using the 1 bit, provided by Huang, in order to support important features of IEEE 802.11be. Id. at ¶¶29, 132.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 22, the combination of Ryu and Huang teaches the claimed inventions of claims 1, 7, and 21, and wherein: a number of bits of first space-time stream number indication information that is in the control information corresponding to the first control subfield and that indicates the number of space-time streams is 3. Ryu, ¶191 (RSS subfield has a size of 3 bits).
Ryu does not explicitly teach “a number of bits of second space-time stream number indication information that is in the control information corresponding to the second control subfield and that indicates the number of space-time streams is 1 and a range of a number of space-time streams jointly indicated by the first space-time stream number indication information and the second space-time stream number indication information is 1 to 16.” However, Huang teaches extending the number of bits allocated for Rx NSS and TX NSTS fields by 1, so that both fields can indicate up to 16 spatial streams. Huang, ¶¶27, 29. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the number of bits, as taught by Huang, when indicating the number of spatial streams that can be supported by a STA, as taught by Ryu, in order to accommodate the signaling needed to implement 802.11be. Id. at ¶¶27, 31.
Claims 6, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Huang, and further in view of Chu (all of record).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 23, the combination of Ryu and Huang teaches the method of claim 5, the apparatus according to claim 11, and the chip according to claim 22, as well as a field for the maximum number of spatial streams that a STA can receive (Ryu, ¶191) and another field for the maximum number of spatial streams that a STA can transmit (Ryu, ¶200). See also Ryu, figure 24 (fields 2420 and 2430). Huang teaches a 1-bit extension for both number of spatial streams field and a channel bandwidth field. Huang, ¶¶29, 98. Huang also teaches encoding the additional bits with the existing bits. Huang, ¶¶35, 106. The combination of Ryu and Huang does not explicitly teach “the number of space-time streams . . . is less than or equal to a number of space-time streams of a preset channel width value.” However, Chu teaches an extended NSS BW support subfield, which indicates the maximum NSS values per bandwidth supported by the STA. Chu, ¶50. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the extension fields, taught by the combination of Ryu and Huang, to jointly encode the extended NSS BW support subfield, taught by Chu, in order to enable the STA to report different support for different NSSs at different bandwidth configurations. Chu, ¶86.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and fax number is 571-270-8514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights