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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered. Independent claims 1, 10, and 15 have been amended. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, and 11-14 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims are new. Claims 1-15 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 15, under 35 USC § 103, are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specified challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 10-11 and 18-19 states “RUs of a small-size RU combination have sizes less than 242 tones, and RUs of a large-size RU combination have sizes of 242 or more tones”, replacing the start word of “RUs” with the terms “the RUs” improves readability of the subject element of “RUs” by adding the determiner “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (Pub. No.: US 20210273768 A1, hereafter “Baron”) in view of Min (Pub. No.: US 20200007265 A1, hereafter “Min”), further in view of Wu (Pub. No.: US 20170093546 A1, hereafter “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 10, and Claim 15
Baron teaches an Apparatus and Method Comprising
communication apparatus comprising: circuitry (Baron Fig. 10a: 1001), which, in operation, generates a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (Baron Fig. 3b: 350) including a signal field (Baron Fig. 2c: 250, PHY preamble) having one or more resource unit (RU) allocation subfields (Baron ¶0083: PPDUs, in accordance to the 802.ax standard, split the channel into RUs), wherein
a RU allocation subfield of the one or more RU allocation subfields indicates a RU combination comprising a plurality of RUs (Baron ¶0083: resource units 201-204 (RUs) that are shared in the frequency domain; Baron teaches a PDU signal field layer with a plurality of RUs within a communication network)
Baron does not explicitly teach
a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits the PPDU to a plurality of other communication apparatuses in two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks; wherein when one of the plurality of other communication apparatuses parks in one of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks, a first RU allocation subfield indicating an RU combination corresponding to the one of the plurality of other communication apparatuses is included in the signal field that is transmitted in the one of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks.
However, Min teaches
a transmitter (Min Fig. 1: 107), which, in operation, transmits the PPDU (Min ¶0408: communicates the PPDU) to a plurality of other communication apparatuses in two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks (Min ¶0408: first and second 80 MHz channels; Min teaches a PPDU communicating with a multitude of 80 MHz channels); wherein when one of the plurality of other communication apparatuses parks (Min ¶0408: assigned) in one of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks (Min ¶0408: first and second 80 MHz channels), a first RU allocation subfield indicating an RU combination corresponding to the one of the plurality of other communication apparatuses (Min ¶0395: RUs may be used for control signaling) is included in the signal field (Min ¶0173: transmission configuration in a signaling field in a PHY preamble, e.g. HE SIG-A PHY preamble) that is transmitted in the one of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks (Min ¶0408: segments are associated with parts of the wide RU; Min teaches assigning frequency segments in a wide RU).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron by way of Min, to include using a PPDU with RUs for control signaling, as taught by Min in Fig. 1, ¶0395, and ¶0408, to increase special efficiency and increase the number of available slots for greater overall throughput.
Baron in view of Min does not explicitly teach
a RU combination indicated in a RU allocation subfield is either a small-size RU combination or a large-size combination.
RUs of a small-size RU combination have sizes less than 242 tones, and
RUs of a large-size RU combination have sizes of 242 or more tones;
However, Wu teaches
a RU combination (Wu ¶0028: 8-bit RU allocation) indicated in a RU allocation subfield (Wu ¶0028: bit-1 being used to differentiate large RU and small RU, e.g. Fig. 3: 301) is either a small-size RU combination (Wu ¶0029: small-sized RU branch with bit-2 being ‘0’, e.g. Fig. 3: 312) or a large-size combination (Wu ¶0028: for the large RU case, bit-2 is set to ‘1’ to indicate there exists RUs larger than or equal to 242 tones, e.g. Fig. 3: 311), RUs of a small-size RU combination have sizes less than 242 tones (Wu ¶0029: small-sized RU branch with bit-2 being ‘0’, e.g. Fig. 3: 332), and RUs of a large-size RU combination have sizes of 242 or more tones (Wu ¶0028: for the large RU case, bit-2 is set to ‘1’ to indicate there exists RUs larger than or equal to 242 tones, e.g. Fig. 3: 331; Wu teaches a RU allocation of an 8 bits, with bit-1 being the slot to determine if an RU size could be distinct from a more simple 242 tones, with bit-2 being used to determine if the RU is smaller than 242 tones, or if it is larger than or equal to 242 tones);
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron in view of Min by way of Wu, to include an element that teaches a RU allocation of an 8 bits, with bit-1 being the slot to determine if an RU size could be distinct from a more simple 242 tones, with bit-2 being used to determine if the RU is smaller than 242 tones, or if it is larger than or equal to 242 tones, as taught by Wu in Fig. 3, ¶0028-¶0029, to allow more flexibility in a MU-MIMO operation to address more dynamic RU allocation systems and optimize systems and allow variable data throughput and improve airwave communications.
Claim 10 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art,
A communication apparatus comprising: a receiver (Baron Fig. 10a: 1004; Baron teaches a communication device with a receiver)
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (Pub. No.: US 20210273768 A1, hereafter “Baron”) in view of Min (Pub. No.: US 20200007265 A1, hereafter “Min”), further in view of Wu (Pub. No.: US 20170093546 A1, hereafter “Wu”), and even further in view of Hedayat (Pub. No.: US 10219271 B1, hereafter “Hedayat”).
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 11
Baron in view of Min teaches the apparatus and method as explained above in Claim 1.
Baron in view of Min does not explicitly teach
wherein the RU combination indicated by the first RU allocation subfield comprises RUs located outside of the one of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks.
However, Hedayat teaches
wherein the RU combination indicated by the first RU allocation subfield (Hedayat Col. 2, Lines 50-56: RU allocation subfield) comprises RUs located outside the one of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks (Hedayat Col. 2, Lines 50-56: bit within RU allocation subfield to indicate the transmission it out of the MU frame; Hedayat teaches a bit within the RU allocation subfield to indicate that the RU is not within the same MU frame)
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron in view of Min, and further in view with Hedayat, to have an element that teaches a bit within the RU allocation subfield to indicate that the RU is not within the same MU frame, as taught by Hedayat in Col. 2, Lines 50-56, to increase performance by changing IF band.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-9, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (Pub. No.: US 20210273768 A1, hereafter “Baron”) in view of Min (Pub. No.: US 20200007265 A1, hereafter “Min”), further in view of Wu (Pub. No.: US 20170093546 A1, hereafter “Wu”), and even further in view of Lee (Pub. No.: US 20170094664 A1, hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 12
Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu teaches the apparatus and method as explained above in Claim 1. Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu does not explicitly teach
wherein multiplexed in a multi-user multiple input and multiple output (MU-MIMO) transmission two or more of the plurality of the other communication apparatuses is allowed only if the two or more of the plurality of the other communication apparatuses are parked in the same subblock of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks.
However, Lee teaches
wherein multiplexed in the multi-user multiple input and multiple output (MU-MIMO) transmission (Lee ¶0435: allocated in MU-MIMO) two or more of the plurality of the other communication apparatuses is allowed only if the two or more of the plurality of the other communication apparatuses (Lee Fig. 41A: 4106A) are parked in the same subblock of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks (Lee ¶0435: User RU allocation SU-MIMO; Lee teaches a plurality of users in one MU-MIMO).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and even further in view with Lee, to include a plurality of users in one MU-MIMO, as taught by Lee, to increase respective special streams.
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 13
Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu teaches the apparatus and method as explained above in Claim 1.
Lee teaches
wherein a multiplexed in a MU-MIMO transmission to two or more of the plurality of other communication apparatuses parking in different frequency subblocks of the two or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks is allowed (Lee ¶0483: user split mode) if the two or more of the plurality of other communication apparatuses are capable of receiving the MU-MIMO transmission (Lee ¶0483: allocated to the MU-MIMO RU; Lee teaches splitting users from one segment to another through an MU-MIMO).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and even further in view with Lee, to include splitting a plurality of users in one MU-MIMO, as taught by Lee, to increase respective special streams.
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 14
Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and further even in view of Lee, teaches the apparatus and method as explained above in Claim 4. Baron teaches
the signal field transmitted in the one 80 MHz frequency subblock comprises user fields corresponding to the two or more of the plurality of other communication apparatuses (Baron ¶0107: User Info Field; Baron teaches using a User Info Field corresponding to a given RU).
Regarding Claim 7
Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and even further in view of Lee, teaches the apparatus and method as explained above in Claim 4. Min further teaches
the signal field transmitted in the one 80 MHz frequency subblock comprising one or more user fields corresponding to the at least one of the two or more of the plurality of other communications apparatus (Min ¶0175: signaling fields defined to enable multi-band aggregation; Min teaches a transmission field relating to the communication apparatus for aggregation, e.g. MU-MIMO).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron by way of Min, to include a transmission field relating to the communication apparatus for aggregation, e.g. MU-MIMO, as taught by Min in ¶0175, to increase special efficiency and increase the number of available slots for greater overall throughput.
Regarding Claim 8
Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu teaches the apparatus and method as explained above in Claim 1. Lee teaches
wherein the signal field comprises one or more user fields (Lee ¶0483: RU allocation subfield) and each of the one or more user fields comprises a field to indicate whether the each of the one or more user field is for a MU-MIMO allocation (Lee ¶0483: allocated MU-MIMO RU) or for a non-MU-MIMO allocation (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Lee teaches the RU allocation having a MU-MIMO).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and even further in view with Lee, to include splitting a plurality of users in one MU-MIMO, as taught by Lee in ¶0483, to increase respective special streams.
Regarding Claim 9
Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu teaches the apparatus and method as explained above in Claim 1. Lee teaches
wherein the signal field comprises a common field indicating whether a large-size RU (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim) or RU combination assignment (Lee ¶0483: RU allocation subfield) for a single user is a MU-MIMO allocation (Lee ¶0483: allocated MU-MIMO RU) or a non-MU-MIMO allocation (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Lee teaches combining users within on RU allocation with a MU-MIMO RU).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and even further in view with Lee, to include combining a plurality of users in one MU-MIMO, as taught by Lee in ¶0483, to increase respective special streams.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (Pub. No.: US 20210273768 A1, hereafter “Baron”) in view of Min (Pub. No.: US 20200007265 A1, hereafter “Min”), in view of Lee (Pub. No.: US 20170094664 A1, hereafter “Lee”) and further in view of Cao (Pub. No.: US 20210266386 A1, hereafter “Cao”).
Regarding Claim 6
Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and even further in view of Lee, teaches the apparatus and method as explained above in Claim 5. Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and even further in view of Lee does not explicitly teach
wherein each of the user fields, which are not corresponding to the at least one of the two or more of the plurality of other communication apparatuses, is a dummy user field
However, Cao teaches
wherein each of the user fields (Cao ¶0073: user information field), which are not corresponding to the at least one of the two or more of the plurality of other communication apparatuses, is a dummy user field (Cao ¶0073: dummy association ID (AID); Cao teaches having a dummy user in the user information field).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baron in view of Min, further in view of Wu, and even further in view with Lee, and even further in view of Cao to have a dummy user in the user information field, as taught by Cao in ¶0073, to more efficiently account for multiple different transmission techniques.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights