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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/05/2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of new ground of rejection presented in this office action, which is necessitated by applicant’s amendments and better addresses the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 is objected to as being a duplicate of claim 20.
Claim 23 depends from claim 21 and recites “the sub-carrier spacing of the L-LTF”, which has no antecedent basis. For clarity, it is suggested that claim 23 depends from claim 22 instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20200382998 A1) in view of CARIOU et al. (US 20250202746 A1), and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20210320831 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Cao discloses “A station (STA) comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the STA to transmit a physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising” (See Fig. 1, [0020] Access point 102 or client stations 152-1, 152-2, or 152-3 generate and transmit data units that include training fields that are used by a receiver signal path to perform synchronization, perform gain control, and estimate channel characteristics for signal equalization): “a data field; a non-High Throughput (non-HT) signal field (L-SIG) comprising first parameters configured for demodulating the data field” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes data field and L-SIG field, [0028] L-SIG field used to communicate certain PHY parameters of data unit format 400, e.g., modulation type and coding rate used to transmit the data unit); “a universal signal field (U-SIG) comprising second parameters configured for demodulating the data field” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes U-SIG field, [0046] the U-SIG field includes bits indicating modulation and coding scheme of the data portion of the data unit), “and a non-HT long training field (L-LTF) configured for estimating channel equalization coefficients for the signal field L-SIG and the U-SIG” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes L-LTF field, [0028] and legacy long training field (L-LTF) 404, generally used for channel estimation and fine synchronization). Note: The channel estimation would inherently apply to subsequent fields including the L-SIG and U-SIG fields.
Cao does not explicitly disclose that the second parameters in the U-SIG field comprise a subcarrier spacing of the data field.
However, CARIOU discloses “a universal signal field (U-SIG) comprising second parameters configured for demodulating the data field wherein the second parameters comprise a subcarrier spacing of the data” (See [0053] In this PPDU structure, the W8-SIG contains a sort of universal SIG field, which will contain: [0055] a field that parametrizes the subcarrier spacing for the rest of the PPDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao with the teachings of CARIOU, and the motivation to do so would have been to enable efficient and reliable demodulation of the data field by utilizing the subcarrier spacing information.
Cao in view of CARIOU does not explicitly disclose that the L-LTF is configured for decoding the data field.
However, PARK discloses “and a non-HT long training field (L-LTF) configured for decoding the data field” (See [0162] an L-STA can decode the data field through the L-LTF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao and CARIOU with the teachings of PARK, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve decoding reliability for receiving STAs processing the PPDU.
Regarding claim 10,
Cao discloses “A station (STA) comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the STA to receive a physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising” (See Fig. 1, [0020] Access point 102 or client stations 152-1, 152-2, or 152-3 generate and transmit data units that include training fields that are used by a receiver signal path to perform synchronization, perform gain control, and estimate channel characteristics for signal equalization): “a data field; a non-High Throughput (non-HT) signal field (L-SIG)comprising first parameters configured for demodulating the data field” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes data field and L-SIG field, [0028] L-SIG field used to communicate certain PHY parameters of data unit format 400, e.g., modulation type and coding rate used to transmit the data unit); “a universal signal field (U-SIG) comprising second parameters configured for demodulating the data field” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes U-SIG field, [0046] the U-SIG field includes bits indicating modulation and coding scheme of the data portion of the data unit), “and a non-HT long training field (L-LTF) configured for estimating channel equalization coefficients for the signal field L-SIG and the U-SIG” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes L-LTF field, [0028] and legacy long training field (L-LTF) 404, generally used for channel estimation and fine synchronization). Note: The channel estimation would inherently apply to subsequent fields including the L-SIG and U-SIG fields.
Cao does not explicitly disclose that the second parameters in the U-SIG field comprise a subcarrier spacing of the data field.
However, CARIOU discloses “a universal signal field (U-SIG) comprising second parameters configured for demodulating the data field wherein the second parameters comprise a subcarrier spacing of the data” (See [0053] In this PPDU structure, the W8-SIG contains a sort of universal SIG field, which will contain: [0055] a field that parametrizes the subcarrier spacing for the rest of the PPDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao with the teachings of CARIOU, and the motivation to do so would have been to enable efficient and reliable demodulation of the data field by utilizing the subcarrier spacing information.
Cao in view of CARIOU does not explicitly disclose that the L-LTF is configured for decoding the data field.
However, PARK discloses “and a non-HT long training field (L-LTF) configured for decoding the data field” (See [0162] an L-STA can decode the data field through the L-LTF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao and CARIOU with the teachings of PARK, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve decoding reliability for receiving STAs processing the PPDU.
Regarding claim 19,
Cao discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a station (STA), cause the STA to transmit a physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising” (See Fig. 1, [0020] Access point 102 or client stations 152-1, 152-2, or 152-3 generate and transmit data units that include training fields that are used by a receiver signal path to perform synchronization, perform gain control, and estimate channel characteristics for signal equalization): “a data field; a non-High Throughput (non-HT) signal field (L-SIG)comprising first parameters configured for demodulating the data field” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes data field and L-SIG field, [0028] L-SIG field used to communicate certain PHY parameters of data unit format 400, e.g., modulation type and coding rate used to transmit the data unit); “a universal signal field (U-SIG) comprising second parameters configured for demodulating the data field” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes U-SIG field, [0046] the U-SIG field includes bits indicating modulation and coding scheme of the data portion of the data unit), “and a non-HT long training field (L-LTF) configured for estimating channel equalization coefficients for the signal field L-SIG and the U-SIG” (See Fig. 7, PPDU includes L-LTF field, [0028] and legacy long training field (L-LTF) 404, generally used for channel estimation and fine synchronization). Note: The channel estimation would inherently apply to subsequent fields including the L-SIG and U-SIG fields.
Cao does not explicitly disclose that the second parameters in the U-SIG field comprise a subcarrier spacing of the data field.
However, CARIOU discloses “a universal signal field (U-SIG) comprising second parameters configured for demodulating the data field wherein the second parameters comprise a subcarrier spacing of the data” (See [0053] In this PPDU structure, the W8-SIG contains a sort of universal SIG field, which will contain: [0055] a field that parametrizes the subcarrier spacing for the rest of the PPDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao with the teachings of CARIOU, and the motivation to do so would have been to enable efficient and reliable demodulation of the data field by utilizing the subcarrier spacing information.
Cao in view of CARIOU does not explicitly disclose that the L-LTF is configured for decoding the data field.
However, PARK discloses “and a non-HT long training field (L-LTF) configured for decoding the data field” (See [0162] an L-STA can decode the data field through the L-LTF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao and CARIOU with the teachings of PARK, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve decoding reliability for receiving STAs processing the PPDU.
Claims 2-4, 11-13 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20200382998 A1) in view of CARIOU et al. (US 20250202746 A1), and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20210320831 A1) and further in view of LEE et al. (US 20150334708 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20-21,
Cao in view of CARIOU and PARK disclose claim 2 of “The STA of claim 1”, claim 11 of “The STA of claim 10”, claim 20 of “The non-transitory computer-readable medium, of claim 19”, and claim 21 of “The non-transitory computer-readable medium, of claim 19”, but do not explicitly disclose selecting/ determining the subcarrier spacing of the data field from a set of a first and second subcarrier spacings.
However, LEE discloses “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the station to select/ determine based on the second parameters, from a set comprising a first subcarrier spacing and a second subcarrier spacing” ([0180] an OFDMA scheme where transmission performed on the sub band by using the reduced subcarrier spacing is referred to as a narrow band reduced subcarrier spacing OFDMA (NB-RSS-OFDMA) scheme. [0197] Differently from the NB-RSS-OFDMA transmission, the subcarrier spacing may remain the same as the legacy compatible part without being reduced. Hereinafter, this transmission scheme is referred to as a narrow band OFDMA (NB-OFDMA) transmission. [0229] Referring to FIG. 50, a transmitting device can select NB-OFDMA or NB-RSS-OFDMA based on a current condition). Note: the STA selects between NB-OFDMA (non-reduced spacing) and NB-RSS-OFDMA (reduced spacing) for NB OFDMA transmission. Since the data field is transmitted using the same OFDMA transmission, the selected subcarrier spacing is applied to the data field.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao, CARIOU and PARK, with the teachings of LEE, and the motivation to do so would have been to select an appropriate subcarrier spacing based on current channel conditions, thereby achieving optimal performance (LEE [0230-0235]).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 22,
Cao in view of CARIOU, PARK and LEE disclose claim 3 of “The STA of claim 2”, claim 12 of “The STA of claim 11”, and claim 22 of “The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21”, “wherein the first subcarrier spacing is equal to a subcarrier spacing of the L-LTF” (See LEE [0197] Differently from the NB-RSS- OFDMA transmission, the subcarrier spacing may remain the same as the legacy compatible part without being reduced. Hereinafter, this transmission scheme is referred to as a narrow band OFDMA (NB-OFDMA) transmission. See LEE [0123] The legacy compatible part includes a legacy short training field (L-STF), a legacy long training field (L-LTF). Note: The first subcarrier spacing (NB-OFDMA) is equal to the subcarrier spacing of the legacy part including legacy L-LTF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao, CARIOU and PARK, with the teachings of LEE, and the motivation to do so would have been to select an appropriate subcarrier spacing based on current channel conditions, thereby achieving optimal performance (LEE [0230-0235]).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 23,
Cao in view of CARIOU, PARK and LEE disclose claim 4 of “The STA of claim 3”, claim 13 of “The STA of claim 12”, and claim 23 of “The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21”, “wherein the first subcarrier spacing is a fraction or a multiple of the subcarrier spacing of the L-LTF” (See LEE [0180] Subcarrier spacing that is reduced than subcarrier spacing (hereinafter referred to as “normal subcarrier spacing”) of a legacy compatible part is applied to the sub-band. Hereinafter, an OFDMA scheme where transmission performed on the sub-band by using the reduced subcarrier spacing is referred to as a narrow band reduced subcarrier spacing OFDMA (NB-RSS-OFDMA) scheme. [0182] In some embodiments, when a band is divided into N sub bands, subcarrier spacing corresponding to 1/N of the normal subcarrier spacing may be used as the reduced subcarrier spacing. Note: The second subcarrier spacing (NB- RSS-OFDMA) is a fraction of the subcarrier spacing of the legacy part including legacy L-LTF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao, CARIOU and PARK, with the teachings of LEE, and the motivation to do so would have been to select an appropriate subcarrier spacing based on current channel conditions, thereby achieving optimal performance (LEE [0230-0235]).
Regarding claims 24-26,
Cao in view of CARIOU, PARK and LEE disclose claim 24 of “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21”, claim 25 of “The STA of claim 2”, and claim 26 of “The STA of claim 11”, “wherein the U-SIG indicates whether the data field is encoded using the first subcarrier spacing or the second subcarrier spacing” (See CARIOU [0053] In this PPDU structure, the W8-SIG contains a sort of universal SIG field, which will contain: [0055] a field that parametrizes the subcarrier spacing for the rest of the PPDU. See LEE [0229] Referring to FIG. 50, a transmitting device can select NB-OFDMA (non-reduced subcarrier spacing) or NB-RSS-OFDMA (reduced subcarrier spacing) based on a current condition).
CARIOU teaches that the U-SIG includes parameters for the subcarrier spacing of the PPDU (including the data field), while LEE teaches selecting between first (non-reduced) and second (reduced) subcarrier spacings. It would have been obvious to signal the selected subcarrier spacing of LEE using the U-SIG field of CARIOU so that a receiving STA can properly demodulate and the decode the PPDU/ data field.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20200382998 A1) in view of CARIOU et al. (US 20250202746 A1), and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20210320831 A1) and further in view Shellhammer et al. (US 20210359885 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16,
Cao in view of CARIOU and PARK disclose claim 7 of “The STA of claim 1”, and claim 16 of “The STA of claim 10”, but do not explicitly disclose the PPDU further comprising an NG-SIG field following the U-SIG field.
However, Shellhammer discloses “wherein the PPDU further comprises a next generation (NG) SIG field (NG-SIG) following the U-SIG” (See Fig. 4B, [0060] The PPDU 402 includes the legacy preamble portion 405 followed by a second preamble 420. The second preamble 420 includes a U-SIG 446 and generation-specific signaling. The generation-specific signaling may be formatted as a next generation signal field (NG-SIG) 448).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao, CARIOU and PARK, with the teachings of Shellhammer, and the motivation to do so would have been to support multi generation PPDU which includes multiple generation specific preambles, and provides RU allocation with greater flexibility (Shellhammer [0088]).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20200382998 A1) in view of CARIOU et al. (US 20250202746 A1), and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20210320831 A1) and further in view Shellhammer et al. (US 20210359885 A1), and further in view of LIM et al. (US 20220150676 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 18,
Cao in view of CARIOU, PARK and Shellhammer disclose claim 9 of “The STA of claim 7”, and claim 18 of “The STA of claim 16”, but do not explicitly disclose that the U-SIG of the NG-SIG
comprises an indication of the number of NG-LTFs in the PPDU.
However, “wherein the U-SIG or the NG-SIG comprises an indication of a number of NG Long Training fields (NG-LTFs) in the PPDU” (See [0317] When a transmitting STA transmits an NGV PPDU through multiple spatial streams, the number of NGV-LTF symbols being used as the midamble may be determined by a number of spatial streams being transmitted. In other words, the number of symbols configuring the midamble may be configured based on the number of spatial streams. [0320] The information related to the number of symbols configuring the midamble may be transmitted to the receiving STA through an NGV-SIG. In other words, the NGV-SIG may include the information related to the number of symbols configuring the midamble).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cao, CARIOU, PARK and Shellhammer with the teachings of LIM, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce signaling overhead, and efficiently transmitting midamble related information.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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.
/SALMA AYAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2462 /YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights