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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1,9,17,21-22,25-27,30-32 and 35 have been amended. Claims 24,29 and 34 have been canceled in this amendment. Claims 2-6,8,10-14,16 and 18-20 have been canceled in the previous amendment. No new Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1,7,9,15,17,21-23,25-28,30-33 and 35 are pending in this application, with claims 1,9 and 17 being independent.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JEFFREY M RUTKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, the use of phrase “An apparatus comprising” in line 1 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the apparatus is related to the stations and MLD. The applicant here fails to tie the apparatus to the stations and the MLD. “It is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable... . [T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims—American Perspectives, 21 Int' ! Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claim 17, the use of phrase “an apparatus is enabled” in line 4 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the apparatus is related to the stations and MLD. The applicant here fails to tie the apparatus to the stations and the MLD. “It is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable... . [T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims—American Perspectives, 21 Int' ! Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In claims 1,7,9,15,17,21,22,26,27,31,32,35, the applicant is required to correct reference to all “frame” in an appropriate order such as first, second, third, etc. for the clarity purpose
In claim 1, line 5, “. .streams to another . .” should read “. . streams with another . .”
In claim 9, line 8, “. .streams to another . .” should read “. . streams with another . .”
In claim 17, line 6, “. .streams to another . .” should read “. . streams with another . .”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1,9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,7,9,15,17,21-22,26-27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH et al. (US 2021/0235309 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Noh”) in view of Abouelseoud et al. (US 2022/0141871 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Abouelseoud”) and in further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0119677 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”)-IDS and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 2021/0385006 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ryu”).
Regarding claims 1,9 and 17, A data transmission method and an apparatus (Noh Fig.2 Para[0066] A wireless device (i.e. apparatus)), comprising: sending, by a first station in a first multi-link device, a third frame (Noh Fig.2,32 Para[0215-219] A wireless device (i.e. station or multi-link device) supporting multiple links sends a frame (i.e. third frame)), wherein the third frame indicates the first station enabled a sharing mode in which the first station is a shared station (Noh Fig.2,32 Para[0215-219] The frame contains operating mode indication for number of transmit space-time stream supported which are active transmit chains), a quantity of the plurality of the shared spatial streams used by the first station is less than or equal to a maximum quantity of shared spatial streams supported by the first multi- link device (Noh Fig.32 Para[0215-219] The frame exchanged between STAs for number of active transmit chains are equal to space-time streams (i.e. spatial streams)), the sharing mode is used for enabling the first station to use the shared spatial streams for receiving or transmitting a physical layer protocol data unit (The applicant is advised that it has been held that the recitation that an element is “used for” performing a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Thus, limitation of “used for” is considered intended use).
Noh does not explicitly disclose enabling a sharing mode and the shared station shares spatial streams to another station in the first multi-link device.
However, Abouelseoud from the same field of invention discloses enabling a sharing mode (Abouelseoud Fig.33 Para[0096-99,0211-212,0235-236] The sharing of up to 8 spatial streams (i.e. maximum) among the STAs) and the shared station shares spatial streams to another station in the first multi-link device (Abouelseoud Fig.33 Para[0096-99,0211-212,0235-236] The multiple STAs sharing (i.e. shared station) spatial streams. The same concept can be implemented in a device with multiple stations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Noh to have the feature of “enabling a sharing mode and the shared station shares spatial streams to another station in the first multi-link device” as taught by Abouelseoud. The motivation would have been to reduce packet latency (Abouelseoud Para[0010]).
Noh in view of Abouelseoud does not explicitly disclose the third frame comprises a shared station field, and the shared station field indicates a plurality of stations in the sharing mode.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses the third frame comprises a shared station field, and the shared station field indicates a plurality of stations in the sharing mode (Zhang Para[0122,0124,0126] A SS-Req frame (i.e. third frame) contains RA and TA fields (i.e. shared station field) and group ID (i.e. sharing mode) for spatial sharing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Noh and Abouelseoud to have the feature of “the third frame comprises a shared station field, and the shared station field indicates a plurality of stations in the sharing mode” as taught by Zhang. The motivation would have been to support spatial sharing between nodes (Zhang Para[0002]).
Noh in view of Abouelseoud and Zhang does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the first station, a fourth frame, wherein the fourth frame is used for responding to the third frame.
However, Ryu from the same field of invention discloses receiving, by the first station, a fourth frame (Ryu Fig.23 Para[0210-211] An ack frame (i.e. fourth frame) is received after sending EHT OM control field (i.e. third frame)), wherein the fourth frame is used for responding to the third frame (The applicant is advised that it has been held that the recitation that an element is “used for” performing a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Thus, limitation of “used for” is considered intended use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Noh, Abouelseoud and Zhang to have the feature of “receiving, by the first station, a fourth frame” as taught by Ryu. The motivation would have been for efficient signal transmission (Ryu Para[0009]).
Specifically for claim 9, Noh discloses the apparatus that includes a processor (Noh Fig.2 A processor) and a memory (Noh Fig.2 A memory).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Ryu further discloses receiving, by the first station, a fifth frame, wherein the fifth frame indicates the first station to disable the sharing mode; and sending, by the first station, a sixth frame, wherein the sixth frame is used for responding to the fifth frame (Ryu Fig.23 Para[0213-214] An off operation control information for disabling stream and an Ack is sent back in response).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Noh, Abouelseoud and Zhang to have the feature of “receiving, by the first station, a fifth frame, wherein the fifth frame indicates the first station to disable the mode of sharing the quantity of spatial streams; and sending, by the first station, a sixth frame, wherein the sixth frame is used for responding to the fifth frame” as taught by Ryu. The motivation would have been for efficient signal transmission (Ryu Para[0009]).
Claims 21,26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang, Ryu and further in view of CHU et al. (US 2018/0302847 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Chu”).
Regarding claims 26,31 and 21, Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu does not disclose wherein the third frame comprises at least one of a first field or a second field, the first field indicates, for each modulation and coding scheme (MCS) among a plurality of MCSs, a maximum quantity of spatial streams for reception supported by the first multi-link device.
However, Chu from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the third frame comprises at least one of a first field or a second field, the first field indicates, for each modulation and coding scheme (MCS) among a plurality of MCSs, a maximum quantity of spatial streams for reception supported by the first multi-link device (Chu Para[0046-51,0114] The RX MCS map in a capabilities field (i.e. first field) for number of spatial streams), and the second field indicates, for each MCS among the plurality of MCSs, a maximum quantity of spatial streams for transmitting supported by the first multi-link device. (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the base claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Noh, Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu to have the feature of “wherein the third frame comprises at least one of a first field or a second field, the first field indicates, for each modulation and coding scheme (MCS) among a plurality of MCSs, a maximum quantity of spatial streams for reception supported by the first multi-link device” as taught by Chu. The motivation would have been for operating mode notification (Chu Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 27,32 and 22, Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu does not disclose wherein the first field is carried in a Supported EHT MCS and NSS Set field of the frame.
However, Chu from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the first field is carried in a Supported EHT MCS and NSS Set field of the frame (Chu Para[0046-51,0114] The MCS and NSS fields in the MAC management frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Noh, Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu to have the feature of “wherein the first field is carried in a Supported EHT MCS and NSS Set field of the frame” as taught by Chu. The motivation would have been for operating mode notification (Chu Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 28,33 and 23, Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang, Ryu and Chu discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. The claim recites wherein the second field is carried in a Supported EHT MCS and NSS Set field of the frame (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the base claim).
Claims 30,35 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang, Ryu and further in view of KIM et al. (US 2021/0099253 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claims 30,35 and 25, Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Noh in view of Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu does not explicitly disclose wherein the third frame comprises a plurality of link identifier fields indicating a plurality of stations in the sharing mode.
However, Kim from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the third frame comprises a plurality of link identifier fields indicating a plurality of stations in the sharing mode (Kim Para[0138-139,0146] HE-SIG-A and B includes beamforming information (i.e. link identifier)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Noh, Abouelseoud, Zhang and Ryu to have the feature of “wherein the third frame comprises a plurality of link identifier fields indicating a plurality of stations in the sharing mode” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to provide accurate and efficient transmission (Kim Para[0016]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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 at (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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415