DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 5/8/2026. Claim 2-4, 6-7, 12-14, and 16-17 have been canceled. New claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1, 5, 8-11, 15, and 18-24 are currently pending in the application.
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 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to further define that the repetition of tones is “in a frequency domain” and “wherein the repetition of tones comprises mapping repeated tones across subcarriers”. Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art does not teach the amended limitations in combination with the previous claim limitation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, it is noted that claims 1 and 11 include limitations written in the alternative. Specifically, these claims require “either or both of: duplication of the RU or MRU; and repetition of tones of the RU or MRU in a frequency domain”. In order to properly anticipate or render obvious such alternative claim language, only one of the claimed options needs to be shown to be taught or rendered obvious by the prior art. Thus, based on the current claim language, the prior art only needs to show either the claimed “duplication of the RU or MRU” or the claimed “repetition of tones of the RU or MRU”, and not both, as argued.
Next, Applicant argues that previously cited Chen et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0068104 A1) does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant argues that Chen et al. relates to tone spreading an RU-level duplication, which is structurally and functionally distinct from the presently claimed tone-level repetition and mapping mechanism. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the teachings of Chen et al. in view of the current claim limitations. Chen et al. discloses an RU repetition tone plan that duplicates the content of one 26 tone RU to nine 26 tone RU (See paragraphs 49-50 and Figure 3 of Chen et al.). As shown in Figure 3, such duplication occurs in the frequency domain, i.e. frequency is illustrated from left to right in the Figure, with the repeated tones of the repeated RUs being across different subcarriers of the frequency domain from left to right (See Figure 3 of Chen et al.). Thus, Chen et al. does teach repetition of tones in a frequency domain mapped across subcarriers, as claimed.
Further, Applicant argues that Chen et al. explicitly teaches away from the claimed multi-user configuration with repetition because Chen et al., at paragraph 53, discloses that increasing duplication or repetition reduces the number of users that can be scheduled in a single PPDU. While it is true that Chen et al. does disclose this downside, Applicant’s argument ignores that Chen et al. also states, at paragraph 53, that 802.11be has much wider bandwidth to accommodate more users and that the number of repetition is configurable such that more users can be scheduled by reducing the number of repetitions. Thus, while Chen et al. does acknowledge a downside of its RU repetition tone plan, Chen et al. still notes that such a plan can be executed within 802.11be due to the wider available bandwidth and configurable number of repetitions. Therefore, Chen et al. does not teach away from the claimed invention.
New claims 21-24 have been added including limitations directed towards “wherein the mapping of the repeated tones comprises mapping the repeated tones across subcarriers in a round-robin manner or according to a uniform distribution” and “wherein the repetition of the tones comprises: performing the ELR communication with repetition of the tones of the RU or MRU with one or more leftover tones; and handling the one or more leftover tones by: continuing the repetition in the one or more leftover tones; or performing no transmission on the one or more leftover tones”. It is believed that these new limitations are rendered obvious in view of previously cited Noh et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0044398 A1). Specifically, Noh et al. discloses tones of repeated RUs being distributed in a modified proportional round robin method with leftover portion of tones continuing the repetition in a different proportion (See paragraphs 165-169 and Figures 32-35 of Noh et al. for reference to examples of this technique). Using the modified proportional round robin method of tone mapping has the advantage of allowing all tones to be utilized while ensuring proportional repetition. Thus, these new claim limitations are rendered obvious in view of previously cited Noh et al.
Please see the rejections below for further detail.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0068104 A1) in view of Medina Acosta et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0385835 A1; hereafter referred to as Medina).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Chen et al. discloses an apparatus comprising: a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly; and a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations of a method (See the abstract, paragraphs 55-56, and Figure 4 of Chen et al. for reference to a station, STA, which is an apparatus, comprising a transceiver coupled to processing circuitry configured to perform operations of a wireless communication method). Chen et al. also discloses generating, by the processor of the apparatus, a resource unit (RU) or multi-RU (MRU) (See paragraphs 9-10 of Chen et al. for reference to generating a RU). Chen et al. further discloses performing, by the processor, an Enhanced Long Range (ELR) communication wirelessly with either or both of: duplication of the RU or MRU; and repetition of tones of the RU or MRU in a frequency domain (See paragraphs 49-50 and Figure 3 of Chen et al. for reference to performing long range communication with RU tone repetition and duplication of the transmission of the RU, wherein the repetition of tones in is the frequency domain, as illustrated from left to right in Figure 3). Chen et al. also discloses wherein the performing of the ELR communication comprises performing an orthogonal frequency-division multiple-access (OFDMA) multi-user (MU) ELR communication with duplication of the RU or MRU (See paragraph 32 and paragraph 49 of Chen et al. for reference to embodiments including performing OFDMA transmission in accordance with an 802.11ax tone plan, which is known in the art include multi-user communication, with duplication of the RU). Chen et al. further discloses wherein the repetition of tones comprises mapping repeated tones across subcarriers (See paragraphs 49-50 and Figure 3 of Chen et al. for reference to the repetition of tones being across frequency subcarriers, as illustrated from left to right in Figure 3). Although Chen et al. does disclose that the number of repetitions is configurable (See paragraph 53 of Chen et al.), Chen et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the performing of the OFDMA MU ELR communication with duplication of the RU or MRU comprises duplicating RUs or MRUs associated with multiple users with different numbers of repetitions and with the RUs or MURs having different sizes such that different effective coding rates are achieved for the multiple users. However, Medina, in the field of communications, discloses transmissions of several wireless devices being made with defined resource unit (RU) length and number of repetitions (See paragraphs 48-51 of Medina). Medina also discloses that the RU length and number of repetitions may be different for different wireless devices in cases of MU-MIMO (See paragraphs 61-69 of Medina). Thus, different wireless devices may be configured to use different RU lengths and different number of repetitions such that the configuration of each wireless device is optimized to its current needs. Therefore, it would have been ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Medina, to combine using performing MU communications for multiple users having different numbers of repetitions and different RU lengths, as suggested by Medina, within the system and method of Chen et al., with the motivation being to optimize the transmission configuration each wireless device separately according to its current needs.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Medina, and in further view of Lim et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0116921 A1).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Chen et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the performing of the ELR communication comprises performing the ELR communication with duplication of the RU or MRU by duplicating the RU or MRU with a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) using binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) or BPSK plus dual-carrier modulation (DCM).
With further respect to claims 8 and 18, Lim et al., in the field of communications, discloses RUs for DUP mode may be modulated using BPSK and that a DCM scheme may be applied (See paragraph 261 of Lim et al.). Using BPSK or BPSK with a DCM scheme has the advantage of providing a more robust modulation scheme for extended range communication. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Lim et al., to combine using BPSK or BPSK with a DCM scheme, as suggested by Lim et al., as the modulation for the duplicated RUs of Chen et al., with the motivation being to provide a more robust modulation scheme for extended range communication.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Medina, and in further view Zhu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2018/0316467 A1) and Lim et al.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, although Chen et al. does disclose performing duplication of the RU (See paragraph 49 and Figure 3 of Chen et al.), Chen et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the performing of the OFDMA MU ELR communication with duplication of the RU or MRU comprises duplicating the RU or MRU by: two times (2x) of a 26-tone RU (RU26) on a 52-tone RU (RU52) with an effective coding rate (eR) = 1/8 for binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) + dual-carrier modulation (DCM) modulation or eR = 1/4 for BPSK modulation, or three times (3x) of the RU26 on a 78-tone MRU (MRU78) with the eR = 1/12 for BPSK + DCM modulation or eR = 1/6 for BPSK modulation, or two times (2x) of a 52-tone RU (RU52) on a 106-tone RU (RU106) with the eR = 1/8 for BPSK + DCM modulation or eR = 1/4 for BPSK modulation, or four times (4x) of the RU26 on the RU106 with the eR = 1/16 for BPSK + DCM modulation or eR = 1/8 for BPSK modulation. Note, this claim includes several alternatives claimed for duplicating the RU or MRU; however, only a single of the claimed alternatives needs to be rejected in order to render obvious these alternative claim limitations. However, Zhu et al., in the field of communications, discloses performing OFDMA MU mode extended range communication using a PPDU including multiple subbands that carry the same data, i.e. repeated RUs, with an embodiment of repeatedly transmitting the data information twice in a 106-tone RU, which equates to 2x 52-tone RU (See paragraph 4 and paragraphs 95-101 of Zhu et al.). The specific repetition of RUs chosen within the specific band sizes are a design choice based on the bands used and allocated by the system and the capabilities of the devices transmitting the RUs. Thus, it would have been an obvious design choice to use a two times (2x) of a 52-tone RU (RU52) on a 106-tone RU (RU106), as suggested by Zhu et al., within the system and method of Chen et al., based on the allocated bands and capabilities of the devices transmitting the RUs. The combination of Chen et al. and Zhu et al. does not specifically teach the use of BPSK + DCM modulation or BPSK modulation achieving the claimed effective coding rates. However, as shown above in the rejection of claims 8 and 18, the use of BPSK or BPSK with a DCM scheme is rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Lim et al. (See paragraph 261 of Lim et al.). Thus, claims 5 and 15 are also rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 3, 8, 13, and 18.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Medina, and in further view of Hu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0400670 A1).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, although Chen et al. does disclose performing tone repetition or RUs in the frequency domain (See paragraph 49 and Figure 3 of Chen et al.), Chen et al. does not specifically disclose the tones uniformly distributed over the RU or MRU in a round-robin fashion.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, although Chen et al. does disclose performing tone repetition or RUs in the frequency domain (See paragraph 49 and Figure 3 of Chen et al.), Chen et al. does not specifically disclose performing the ELR communication with repetition of the tones of the RU or MRU with one or more leftover tones; and handling the one or more leftover tones by: continuing the repetition in the one or more leftover tones; or performing no transmission on the one or more leftover tones.
With further respect to claims 9-10 and 19-20, Hu et al., in the field of communications, discloses the tones being uniformly distributed over the RU in a round-robin fashion, as illustrated by Figure 10 of Hu et al., with extra tones, i.e. leftover tones, being used as padding tones such no transmission is performed on the extra tones (See paragraph 94, paragraph 98, and Figure 10 of Hu et al.). Using tones uniformly distributed over the RU in a round-robin fashion with extra tones being used as padding tones has the advantage of preventing issues caused by tones overlapping (See paragraph 98 of Hu et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Hu et al., to combine using tones uniformly distributed over the RU in a round-robin fashion with extra tones being used as padding tones, as suggested by Hu et al., within the system and method of Chen et al., with the motivation being to prevent issues caused by tones overlapping.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Medina, and in further view of Noh et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0044398 A1).
With respect to claims 21 and 23, Chen et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the mapping of the repeated tones comprises mapping the repeated tones across subcarriers in a round-robin manner or according to a uniform distribution.
With respect to claims 22 and 24, Chen et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the repetition of the tones comprises: performing the ELR communication with repetition of the tones of the RU or MRU with one or more leftover tones; and handling the one or more leftover tones by: continuing the repetition in the one or more leftover tones; or performing no transmission on the one or more leftover tones.
With further respect to claims 21-24, Noh et al., in the field of communications, discloses tones of repeated RUs being distributed in a modified proportional round robin method with leftover portion of tones continuing the repetition in a different proportion (See paragraphs 165-169 and Figures 32-35 of Noh et al. for reference to examples of this technique). Using the modified proportional round robin method of tone mapping has the advantage of allowing all tones to be utilized while ensuring proportional repetition. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Noh et al., to combine using the modified proportional round robin method of tone mapping, as suggested by Noh et al., within the system and method of Chen et al., with the motivation being to allow all tones to be utilized while ensuring proportional repetition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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 at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights