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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/9/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but 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 specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 8, 9, 10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al. (2019/0230703) hereinafter “Lv”, Wang et al. (US 2017/0070962), hereinafter “Wang”, and Lou et al. (2025/0261233) hereinafter “Lou”.
As to claim 1/20, (Currently Amended) Lv discloses A device / CRM comprising:
one or more processors (802); and memory/CRM (804) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device (see [0202]) to:
receive, from an overlapping basic service set (OBSS), a first physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising a first field (SR-Indication / SR Status/SRP subfield) that indicates presence or absence of a spatial reuse parameter (SRP / control information /OBSS-PDmin, OBSS-PDmax, etc) in a second field of the first PPDU (see Fig. 3A: AP1 transmits HE-PPDU1 (SR=0) or HE-PPDU2 with SR=1 allowing spatial reuse according to SRP / control information in separate field / subfield. See [0012], [0058]-[0063];
based on the first field indicating presence of the spatial reuse parameter in the second field of the first PPDU (See [0031], [0058], Fig 5: “54”),
determine a transmit power threshold (see [0012], [0035], [0083]) based on the spatial reuse parameter ; and
transmit a second PPDU (HE-PPDUa / HE-PPDUb) using a transmit power based on the transmit power threshold (See Fig 3A, Fig 5: “61”),
wherein transmission of the second PPDU overlaps with transmission of the first PPDU (see Fig. 3A).
Lv fail to explicitly recite wherein the determined transmit power threshold is based on the spatial reuse parameter. In an analogous art Wang discloses such in [0030]. See also [0009]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lv such that the determined transmit power threshold is based on the spatial reuse parameter as taught by Wang for the purpose of avoiding interference.
The combination of Lv and Wang fail to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art Lou discloses wherein the spatial reuse parameter indicates whether spatial reuse is allowed during the first PPDU ([0111]: “one bit in U-SIG and/or EHT SIG field may be used to indicate this is a PSRT PPDU… if this bit is set, the spatial reuse subfield (e.g., in the EHT-SIG) in EHT MU PPDU or EHT TB PPDU) may be repurposed to carry power control information for the responding frame”), wherein the first field is in a universal signal field (U-SIG) of a preamble of the first PPDU, and wherein the second field is in a field following the U-SIG in the first PPDU (subfield is after / follows first field), see Fig.3 in order to carry out . Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lv such that the spatial reuse parameter indicates whether spatial reuse is allowed during the first PPDU, wherein the first field is in a universal signal field (U-SIG) of a preamble of the first PPDU, and wherein the second field is in a field following the U-SIG in the first PPDU as taught by Lou for the purpose of implementing parameterized spatial reuse.
As to claim 8, (Original) the combination of Lv, Wang, and Lou discloses The device of claim 1, Lv further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to transmit the second PPDU such that transmission of the second PPDU ends before an end of transmission of the first PPDU. See Fig. 3A. [0077]. See [0020]
As to claim 9, (Original) the combination of Lv, Wang, and Lou discloses The device of claim 1, Lv further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to transmit the second PPDU such that transmission of the second PPDU ends before a period indicated in the first PPDU. See [0086] where the duration timer is set to the remaining time of the current PPDU.
As to claim 10, (Original) the combination of Lv, Wang, and Lou discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the device comprises an access point (AP) or a station (STA). See Figs 2A 3A (STA2/STA3)
As to claim 19, (Original) the combination of Lv, Wang, and Lou discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the device comprises a station (STA). See Figs 2A 3A (STA2/STA3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv, Wang, and Lou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0327741), hereinafter “Li”.
As to claim 2, (Original) the combination of Lv, Wang, and Lou discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, is silent to yet in an analogous art Li discloses further cause the device to receive a third PPDU comprising a trigger frame that triggers the first PPDU. See [0049]-[0052] / step S202 of Fig 2. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Lv such that device is further caused to receive a third PPDU comprising a trigger frame that triggers the first PPDU in order to perform multi-user uplink transmissions.
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv, Wang, and Lou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tong et al. (US 2024/0155514), hereinafter Tong.
As to claims 5, the combination is silent but in an analogous art, Tong discloses the spatial reuse parameter is for parameterized spatial reuse (PSR)-based spatial reuse [0003]. Before the effective filing date of the
instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lv such that the spatial reuse parameter is for parameterized spatial reuse (PSR)-based spatial reuse to conform with industry standards.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv, Wang, and Lou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2024/0414663), hereinafter Yu.
As to claim 6 the combination fails to explicitly recite but Yu recites wherein the spatial reuse parameter is for overlapping basic service set packet detect (OBSS PD)-based spatial reuse (see [0005]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang and Li such that the spatial reuse parameter is for overlapping basic service set packet detect (OBSS PD)-based spatial reuse to conform with industry standards.
As to claim 7, additionally, it is considered that wherein the spatial reuse parameter indicates that OBSS PD-based spatial reuse is prohibited for a duration of the first PPDU is a feature inherent to OBSS PD.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv and Li and Shilo.
As to claim 11, (Currently Amended) Lv discloses A device comprising:
one or more processors (802); and memory (804) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to:
receive a trigger frame (HE-PPDU2) comprising a spatial reuse parameter; and
transmit a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDUa/b) in response to the trigger frame, wherein a preamble of the PPDU comprises a first field (SR status see [0012], [0058]-[0062]) that indicates presence or absence (SR-Allowed) of the spatial reuse parameter in a second field of the PPDU, (see [0058]: “such as OBSS-PDmin and OBSS-PDmax, etc., to notify the spatial reuse capable stations the spatial reuse parameters for the enhanced EDCA. The spatial reuse capable station shall use those parameters to perform the spatial reuse contention and transmit PPDU in spatial reuse.”.
Lv fail to explicitly recite wherein the frame is a trigger frame. In an analogous art Li discloses the use of trigger frames… See [0049]-[0052] / step S202 of Fig 2. Before the effective filing date of the instant application
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Lv to cause the device to receive a trigger frame for the purpose of enabling multi-user transmissions.
Lv discloses a SIG See [0032], [0059], [0004] but fails to recite
wherein the preamble comprises a universal signal field (U-SIG) that comprises the first field, and wherein the second field is in a field following the U-SIG.
In an analogous art, Shilo discloses wherein it was known to include spatial reuse parameters (Spatial Reuse 1, Spatial reuse 2) in the U-SIG preamble as shown in Fig.2. See col 6 lines 11-17. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Lv such that the preamble comprises a universal signal field (U-SIG) that comprises the first field, and wherein the second field is in the U-SIG or in a field immediately following the U-SIG as taught by Shilo as conforming to IEEE standards (col 1 lines 27-41).
Lv fails to explicitly recite yet Lou discloses wherein the spatial reuse parameter indicates whether spatial reuse is allowed during the first PPDU (see [0111] as applied above to claim 1). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lv such that the spatial reuse parameter indicates whether spatial reuse is allowed during the first PPDU as taught by Lou for the purpose of implementing parameterized spatial reuse.
As to claim 12, (Original) the combination of Lv, Li, Shilo, and Lou discloses The device of claim 11, wherein the trigger frame comprises a value of the first field. Lv: SR status = 0/1.
As to claims 15, the combination is silent but in an analogous art, Lou further discloses the spatial reuse parameter is for parameterized spatial reuse (PSR)-based spatial reuse [0003]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lv such that the spatial reuse parameter is for parameterized spatial reuse (PSR)-based spatial reuse to conform with industry standards.
As to claim 16, it is considered inherent that the spatial reuse parameter indicates a transmit power threshold for PSR-based spatial reuse.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv, Li, Shilo, and Lou as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yu.
As to claim 17 the combination fails to explicitly recite but Yu recites wherein the spatial reuse parameter is for overlapping basic service set
packet detect (OBSS PD)-based spatial reuse (see [0005]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lv, Li, Shilo, and Lou such that the spatial reuse parameter is for overlapping basic service set packet detect (OBSS PD)-based spatial reuse to conform with industry standards.
As to claim 18, additionally, it is considered that wherein the spatial reuse parameter indicates that OBSS PD-based spatial reuse is prohibited for a duration of the first PPDU is a feature inherent to OBSS PD.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights