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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 19-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicants arguments regarding the rejection of amended claim 1, while a new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth for amended claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees with certain arguments presented by the applicant. For example the applicant argues on (Pg. 7 of the remarks) that the link adaptation framework is specifically engineered for extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication, a concept that none of the cited references individually or collectively disclose. However the examiner respectfully disagrees as Kim (Of Record) discloses in Para [0049] i.e., The following examples of the present specification may be applied to various wireless communication systems…The present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard”. Therefore the control field of an MAC header of the first message frame comprising link adaptation information as disclosed in Fig. 22 & Para’s [0294-0295] is suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (Kim, see Para’s [0049] & [0294-0296]) and therefore Kim individually discloses the limitation in claim 1 of the first message comprises link adaptation information suitable for an extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication.
In regards to the applicants arguments that the claimed method comprises determining and sending a first message which MAC header control field carries link adaptation information suitable for EHT communication, for the same reason explained above, the control field of an MAC header of the first message frame comprising link adaptation information as disclosed in Fig. 22 & Para’s [0294-0295] is suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (Kim, see Para’s [0049] & [0294-0296]) and therefore the information such as the first bandwidth identifier, the resource unit allocation identifier, and MCS identifier in Fig. 22 of Kim while described to operate according to high efficiency (HE) communication would result in being extended to be used extreme high-throughput communication according to Para [0049] of Kim which discloses the present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard which results in the first bandwidth identifier, the resource unit allocation identifier, and MCS identifier in Fig. 22 of Kim to be suitable for EHT communication.
In regards to the applicants arguments in the last paragraph of (Pg. 7 of the remarks) the applicant argues that Kim’s discloses modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield designed for IEEE 802.11ax HE communications and Para [0294] of Kim explicitly frames the disclosure within the HE HLA context. However Para [0294] of Kim discloses “the present specification proposes various control messages/frames for a preferred/recommended RU of the STA”. Referring to Para [0049], Kim discloses the present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard which therefore can result in first message including the link adaptation control information of Fig. 22 in Kim specification to be applied or suitable for EHT communication. Therefore while Para [0294] of Kim discloses the frame is within the HE HLA context, it is not limited to HE HLA and may also be applied or suitable for EHT communication according to Para [0049] of Kim.
In regards to the applicants further arguments in the last paragraph of (Pg. 7 of the remarks) regarding Huang ‘605 of extending HT control information to accommodate EHT features such as 320 MHz and 16 spatial streams, however the link adaptation information in Fig. 9 of Huang such as the bandwidth identifier which indicates support of 320 MHz bandwidth in Huang ‘605 is suitable for EHT communication (Huang, see Para’s [0029] i.e., For EHT, it may be advantageous to extend i.e., one bit for channel width to 320 MHz, [0031] i.e., part of the major features of IEEE 802.11be (EHT) are 320 MHz and 16 spatial streams…EHT variant of HE link adaptation, [0094], [0096], & [0104] i.e., EHT signaling structure 300). Therefore the combination of Kim in view of Huang both disclose that the link adaptation information may be suitable for EHT communication. In regards to the applicants arguments that the claimed EHT-specific framework enables efficient MCS feedback tailored for EHT communication environments, amended claim 1 does not include a claimed “EHT-specific framework” nor does amended claim 1 claim any type of “MCS feedback” as stated by applicant on the first paragraph of (Pg. 8 of the remarks).
In regards to the applicants further argument of (Pg. 8 of the remarks), the applicant argues that the first bandwidth identifier is configured to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz through an independent “large bandwidth” bit (B25) that coexists with a conventional BW field for smaller bandwidths, however amended claim 1 does not claim a “large bandwidth” bit (B25) nor does amended claim 1 claim such a large bandwidth field that coexists with a conventional BW field for smaller bandwidths. Rather claim 1 just claims “a first bandwidth identifier” in which the combination of Kim in view of Huang in the rejection of claim 1 have been shown to disclose that the first bandwidth identifier is configured to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz. The applicant argues that the claimed approach, by contrast, retains the legacy BW field for backward compatibility with HE devices while adding an independent bit specifically dedicated to 320 MHz identification, however the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claimed approach in claim 1 does not claim any legacy BW field in addition to or “while adding” an independent bit specifically dedicated to 320 MHz as claim 1 only claims a “first bandwidth identifier”. Therefore the applicant is arguing subject matter which is not claimed in amended claim 1.
In regards to the applicants further arguments on (Pg. 8 of the remarks) regarding the MCS identifier is configured to identify a recommended EHT-MCS, which is an MCS specifically defined for the EHT communication environment and that Kim discloses an HE-MCS field 2213 (Para [0301]) that carries an MCS index for HE communication, and that neither of the references teaches or suggests an MCS identifier that is specifically configured to identify an MCS for the EHT communication environment, the examiner respectfully disagrees. For the same reasons explained above with respect to Para [0049] of Kim which discloses the present specification may be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard, the MCS identifier 2213 of Fig. 22 of Kim & Para [0301] may apply to a preferred or recommended MCS for EHT communication instead of HE communication. Therefore according to Para’s [0049] & [0301] of Kim, the MCS identifier in Fig. 22 of Kim, may identify an MCS for the EHT communication environment .
In regards to the applicants arguments on (Pg.’s 8-9 of the remarks), regarding the newly amended claim features of the resource unit allocation identifier is configured to identify both single resource units and multiple resource units (MRUs), the concept of MRUs, and the resource unit allocation identifier is specifically used to identify a 3X996+484-tone MRU composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU, a new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth for addressing the newly amended claim features. Therefore arguments presented with respect to the claim features are considered moot.
In regards to the applicants arguments on (Pg.’s 9-10 of the remarks) regarding a functional relationship between the resource unit allocation identifier and the EHT-MCS identifier: such as the newly amended claim feature in claim 1 of the resource unit allocation identifier is used to identify an RU or MRU to which the recommended EHT-MCS applied, Kim discloses the claim feature of wherein the resource unit allocation identifier is used to identify an RU or MRU to which the recommended EHT-MCS applies (see Para’s [0300] i.e., the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication, [0301] i.e., Fig. 22 may include the HE-MCS field 2213 for the recommended MCS of the user STA in addition to the RU allocation field 2215…the HE-MCS 2213 may include information about a preferred/recommended MCS for UL MU communication (i.e., recommended MCS applies to RU used for UL communication) & [0305-0306] i.e., RU preferred/recommended for the DL communication of the user STA…MCS preferred/recommended for the same DL communication, [0322], & [0327] i.e., An RU of the data field for STA2 in the DL PPDU is configured based on the RU allocation field 2215…An MCS of the data field for STA2 in the DL PPDU may be determined based on the HE-MCS field 2213). Therefore Kim discloses a functional relationship between the resource unit allocation identifier and the EHT-MCS since the RU allocation and MCS allocation both apply to the scheduled uplink or downlink data, (Kim, see Para’s [0300-0301], [0305-0306], & [0327]).
As previously mentioned a new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth for amended claim 1. The same response to arguments applies to independent claims 9 and 19 which have been amended to recite similar limitations as claim 1 in which a new ground(s) of rejection has been also set forth for amended claims 9 and 19 similar to claim 1.The dependent claims remain rejected over the prior art (Of Record) based on their dependence to the independent claims.
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, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US (2021/0068197) in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605), further in view of Chen et al. US (2021/0045151), and further in view of Kim et al. US (2023/0016370).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a communication method, comprising: determining a first message frame (see Fig. 22 & Para’s [0294-0296] i.e., The present specification proposes various control messages/frames. A control message frame may be configured with various messages/frames…For example, the following first option proposes an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax used for link adaptation), wherein a control field of a media access control (MAC) header of the first message frame comprises link adaptation information (see Fig. 22 i.e., modified high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) subfield includes link adaptation information such as recommended NSS, MCS, RU, BW etc.& Para’s [0294-0296] i.e., For example, the following first option proposes an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax used for link adaptation…The HLA and CAS subfields used herein are types of a control field inserted in a MAC header…Fig. 22 relates to an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax…An AP and/or a user STA may transmit the field of Fig. 22 & [0297-0308] i.e., link adaptation information of the field of Fig. 22 includes recommended NSS, MCS, RU, BW etc.)
suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (see Para’s [0007] i.e., extremely high throughput (EHT) & [0049] i.e., the present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard)
and sending the first message frame, (see Para’s [0296] i.e., An AP and/or a user STA may transmit the field of Fig. 22 & [0319])
wherein the link adaptation information comprises: a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth (see Fig. 22 i.e., BW 2216 & Para [0303] i.e., the BW field 2216 may include information about a bandwidth (e.g., 20MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, or the like) preferred/recommended for UL MU communication)
a resource unit allocation identifier configured to identify an allocated single resource unit or multiple resource unit (see Fig. 22 i.e., RU allocation field 2215 & Para’s [0300] i.e., RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication, & [0305] i.e. the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about an RU preferred/recommended for DL communication of the user STA)
a MCS identifier configured to identify a recommended EHT-MCS (see Fig. 22 i.e., HE-MCS & Para’s [0049] i.e., The present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard, [0301] i.e., Fig. 22 may include the HE-MCS field 2213 for the recommended MCS of the user STA in addition to the RU allocation filed 2215…the HE-MCS field may include information about a preferred/recommended MCS for UL MU communications, & [0306] i.e., HE-MCS field 2213 may include information about an MCS preferred/recommended for DL communication)
wherein the resource unit allocation identifier is used to identify an RU or MRU to which the recommended EHT-MCS applies (see Para’s [0300] i.e., the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication, [0301] i.e., Fig. 22 may include the HE-MCS field 2213 for the recommended MCS of the user STA in addition to the RU allocation field 2215…the HE-MCS 2213 may include information about a preferred/recommended MCS for UL MU communication (i.e., recommended MCS applies to RU used for UL communication) & [0305-0306] i.e., RU preferred/recommended for the DL communication of the user STA…MCS preferred/recommended for the same DL communication, [0322], & [0327] i.e., An RU of the data field for STA2 in the DL PPDU is configured based on the RU allocation field 2215…An MCS of the data field for STA2 in the DL PPDU may be determined based on the HE-MCS field 2213)
Kim does not disclose the claim feature of the first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605).
Huang discloses wherein the link adaptation information comprises: a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz, (see Fig. 9 i.e., BW 905 & Para’s [0027], [0029], [0031], [0034] i.e., For extending channel width, the HT control information system may add an additional bit that extends Channel Width to indicate up to 320 MHz, [0096] i.e., HLA control needs additional two bits to extend the BW subfield 905 to accommodate information needed to support 320 MHz and NSS to 16 spatial streams & [0104] i.e., The HT control information system may add one additional bit to extend the BW subfield 905 to indicate up to 320 MHz)
(Huang suggests the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield (i.e., Fig. 9) may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links 345-355 (i.e., Fig. 3) may require additional bandwidth, (see Fig. 3, Fig. 8, & Para’s [0029], [0070], [0094], [0096], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the link adaptation information comprising a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth included in the HLA control subfield of the first message frame suitable for extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication as disclosed in Kim to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz as indicated in the bandwidth field 905 of the HLA control subfield disclosed in the teachings of Huang, because the motivation lies in Huang that the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links may require additional bandwidth.
While the combination of Kim in view of Huang discloses supporting a bandwidth of 320MHZ for the communication (Huang, see Para’s [0034], [0096], & [0104]), the combination of Kim in view of Huang does not disclose using a 3X996+484-tone MRU composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chen et al. US (2021/0045151).
Chen discloses for a 320 MHZ PPDU BW, a multiple resource unit (MRU) assignment within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth may include using (3X996+484)-tone MRU composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU, (see Para [0202] i.e., For example, for a total 320 MHz PPDU, there may be 343 options of sizes of RUs and locations within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth (i.e., 8 (3X996+484)-tone RUs (i.e., “MRU”)…aggregated RU within a PPDU BW for a 320 MHz channel bandwidth).
(Chen suggests offering flexibility in options for a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation which includes an option of using 3X996+484-tone RUs for offering an MRU allocation that supports greater bandwidths such as a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication, (see Para’s [0062] & [0202])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the bandwidth of 320 MHZ supported for the communication as disclosed in Kim in view of Huang to use the multi resource unit (MRU) allocation of (3X996+484)-tone RUs composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU used within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication as disclosed in the teachings of Chen, because the motivation lies in Chen for offering flexibility in options for a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation which includes an option of using 3X996+484-tone RUs for offering an MRU allocation that supports greater bandwidths such as a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication.
While the combination of Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen discloses the resource unit allocation identifier identifying a resource unit (RU) allocation (Kim, see Fig. 22 i.e., RU allocation field 2215 Para’s [0300] & [0305]) and using the 3X996+484 MRU for the 320 MHz bandwidth EHT communication (Chen, see Para [0202]), the combination of Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen does not disclose the resource unit allocation identifier identifying the multiple resource unit (MRU). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Kim et al. US (2023/0016370).
Kim discloses an resource unit (RU) allocation field (i.e., “resource unit allocation identifier”) which identifies a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation for a PPDU bandwidth communication (see Para’s [0102] i.e., RUs allocated via an RU allocation subfield so as to receive data by the UE in the recognized RUs, [0150] i.e., The RU allocation subfield may…indicate a combination of RUs constituting each large RU, [0158-0161], [0425] i.e., when a total bandwidth for transmitting a PPDU is 160 MHz, the PPDU transmitted by applying OFDMA-MU may be transmitted via a CRU (or MRU) of 80+40 MHz allocated via an RU allocation subfield & [0456] when an MRU is allocated to the non-AP STA in the RU allocation subfield).
Kim suggests the multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation indicated in the RU allocation field is used for extremely high throughput (EHT) data communications which is capable of supporting an increased transmission rate and wider bandwidth for the data communication of a UE (see Para’s [0007], [0093], [0102], & [0158-0162])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the resource unit allocation identifier which identifies the RU allocation as disclosed in Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen to identify the multiple resource unit MRU allocation such as the 3X996+484 MRU used for the 320 MHz bandwidth EHT communication based on the teachings of Kim who discloses a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation used for a EHT communication may be indicated in a resource unit (RU) allocation field, because the motivation lies in Kim that the multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation indicated in the RU allocation field is used for extremely high throughput (EHT) data communications which is capable of supporting an increased transmission rate and wider bandwidth for the data communication of a UE.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, the combination of Kim in view of Huang discloses the communication method according to claims 1 and 9, wherein the link adaptation information further comprises: a second bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth less than 320 MHz, (Kim, see Fig. 22 i.e., BW 2216 & Para [0303] i.e., the BW field 2216 may include information about a bandwidth (e.g., 20MHz, 40MHz, 80 MHz, or the like) (i.e., “bandwidth less than 320 MHz”) preferred/recommended for UL MU communication (i.e., bits used to define bandwidth information such as 20MHz, 40MHz, 80 MHz, or the like may refer to the “second identifier” and additional bits used to define bandwidth information such as 320MHz as disclosed in Huang (‘605) in Para’s [0096] & [0104] may refer to the “first identifier”))
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, the combination of Kim in view of Huang discloses the communication method according to claims 3 and 11, wherein when the first bandwidth identifier is set to support the bandwidth of 320 MHz (Huang, see Para’s [0096] i.e., additional bits which are set to indicate support of 320 MHz may be the “first identifier” & [0104]), the second bandwidth identifier may be set to support a bandwidth less than 320 MHz such as 160 MHz (Kim, see Para [0303] i.e., the BW field may include information about a bandwidth (e.g., 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, or the like) where “or the like” suggests 160 MHz may be indicated through a set of bits (i.e., “second bandwidth identifier”)), however Kim does not explicitly disclose supporting the bandwidth of 160 MHz. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605).
Huang discloses a wireless device or access point supports communication over channel bandwidths including 160 MHz which may be indicated through a set of bits (i.e., second bandwidth identifier) in BW subfield 905, (see Fig. 9, 905 & Para’s [0096], [0104], & [0183])).
(Huang suggests additional bits are added to extend the BW field to provide up to 320 MHz of bandwidth required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links 345-355 may require additional bandwidth (see Fig. 3, Fig. 8, & Para’s [0029], [0070], [0094], [0096], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second bandwidth identifier which may be set to support a bandwidth less than 320 MHz as disclosed in Kim to be set to support a bandwidth of 160 MHz based on the teachings of Huang who discloses a wireless device or access point supports communication over channel bandwidths including 160 MHz which may be indicated through a set of bits (i.e., second bandwidth identifier) in BW subfield 905, because the motivation lies in Huang that additional bits are added to extend the BW field to provide up to 320 MHz of bandwidth required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links may require additional bandwidth.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the communication method according to claim 2, wherein the link adaptation information further comprises: a resource unit allocation identifier configured to identify an allocated single resource unit or multiple resource unit, (see Fig. 22 i.e., RU allocation 2215 & Para [0300] i.e., the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication)
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the communication method according to claim 1, wherein the link adaptation information comprises: an identifier of a number of spatial streams configured to identify a support of any one of 1 spatial stream to 16 spatial streams, (see Fig. 22 i.e., NSS 2212 & Para [0302] i.e., the NSS field 2212 may include information about the number of spatial streams preferred/recommended for UL MU communication…the AP may allocate a spatial stream indicated by the NSS field 2212 for UL MU communication of the user STA transmitting the NSS field 2212)
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses a communication method, comprising: receiving a first message frame, (see Fig. 22 & Para’s [0294-0296] i.e., The present specification proposes various control messages/frames. A control message frame may be configured with various messages/frames…For example, the following first option proposes an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax used for link adaptation, [0296] i.e., An AP and/or a user STA may transmit the field of Fig. 22 (i.e., frame will be received by receiving device), & [0319])
wherein a control field of a media access control (MAC) header of the first message frame comprises link adaptation information (see Fig. 22 i.e., modified high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) subfield includes link adaptation information such as recommended NSS, MCS, RU, BW etc.& Para’s [0294-0296] i.e., For example, the following first option proposes an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax used for link adaptation…The HLA and CAS subfields used herein are types of a control field inserted in a MAC header…Fig. 22 relates to an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax…An AP and/or a user STA may transmit the field of Fig. 22 & [0297-0308] i.e., link adaptation information of the field of Fig. 22 includes recommended NSS, MCS, RU, BW etc.)
suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (see Para’s [0007] i.e., extremely high throughput (EHT) & [0049] i.e., the present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard)
and performing a communication operation according to the first message frame, (see Para’s [0296], [0304] i.e., For example, when the narrowband RU field 2220 has the second value, the plurality of fields 2212, 2213, 2215, 2216, and the like illustrated in Fig. 22 may be used for DL communication for the user STA, & [0305-0308] i.e., Specifically, when the AP receives the narrowband RU field 2220 having the second value, the AP may configure a DL PPDU based on the RU allocation field 2215. More specifically, when the AP configures the DL PPDU, the size of a DL RU for the user STA may be determined based on the size of an RU included in the RU allocation field 2215)
wherein the link adaptation information comprises: a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth (see Fig. 22 i.e., BW 2216 & Para [0303] i.e., the BW field 2216 may include information about a bandwidth (e.g., 20MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, or the like) preferred/recommended for UL MU communication)
a resource unit allocation identifier configured to identify an allocated single resource unit or multiple resource unit (see Fig. 22 i.e., RU allocation field 2215 & Para’s [0300] i.e., RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication, & [0305] i.e. the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about an RU preferred/recommended for DL communication of the user STA)
a MCS identifier configured to identify a recommended EHT-MCS (see Fig. 22 i.e., HE-MCS & Para’s [0049] i.e., The present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard, [0301] i.e., Fig. 22 may include the HE-MCS field 2213 for the recommended MCS of the user STA in addition to the RU allocation filed 2215…the HE-MCS field may include information about a preferred/recommended MCS for UL MU communications, & [0306] i.e., HE-MCS field 2213 may include information about an MCS preferred/recommended for DL communication)
wherein the resource unit allocation identifier is used to identify an RU or MRU to which the recommended EHT-MCS applies (see Para’s [0300] i.e., the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication, [0301] i.e., Fig. 22 may include the HE-MCS field 2213 for the recommended MCS of the user STA in addition to the RU allocation field 2215…the HE-MCS 2213 may include information about a preferred/recommended MCS for UL MU communication (i.e., recommended MCS applies to RU used for UL communication) & [0305-0306] i.e., RU preferred/recommended for the DL communication of the user STA…MCS preferred/recommended for the same DL communication, [0322], & [0327] i.e., An RU of the data field for STA2 in the DL PPDU is configured based on the RU allocation field 2215…An MCS of the data field for STA2 in the DL PPDU may be determined based on the HE-MCS field 2213)
Kim does not disclose the claim feature of the first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605).
Huang discloses wherein the link adaptation information comprises: a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz, (see Fig. 9 i.e., BW 905 & Para’s [0027], [0029], [0031], [0034] i.e., For extending channel width, the HT control information system may add an additional bit that extends Channel Width to indicate up to 320 MHz, [0096] i.e., HLA control needs additional two bits to extend the BW subfield 905 to accommodate information needed to support 320 MHz and NSS to 16 spatial streams & [0104] i.e., The HT control information system may add one additional bit to extend the BW subfield 905 to indicate up to 320 MHz)
(Huang suggests the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield (i.e., Fig. 9) may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links 345-355 (i.e., Fig. 3) may require additional bandwidth, (see Fig. 3, Fig. 8, & Para’s [0029], [0070], [0094], [0096], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the link adaptation information comprising a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth included in the HLA control subfield of the first message frame suitable for extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication as disclosed in Kim to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz as indicated in the bandwidth field 905 of the HLA control subfield disclosed in the teachings of Huang, because the motivation lies in Huang that the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links may require additional bandwidth.
While the combination of Kim in view of Huang discloses supporting a bandwidth of 320MHZ for the communication (Huang, see Para’s [0034], [0096], & [0104]), the combination of Kim in view of Huang does not disclose using a 3X996+484-tone MRU composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chen et al. US (2021/0045151).
Chen discloses for a 320 MHZ PPDU BW, a multiple resource unit (MRU) assignment within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth may include using (3X996+484)-tone MRU composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU, (see Para [0202] i.e., For example, for a total 320 MHz PPDU, there may be 343 options of sizes of RUs and locations within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth (i.e., 8 (3X996+484)-tone RUs (i.e., “MRU”)…aggregated RU within a PPDU BW for a 320 MHz channel bandwidth).
(Chen suggests offering flexibility in options for a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation which includes an option of using 3X996+484-tone RUs for offering an MRU allocation that supports greater bandwidths such as a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication, (see Para’s [0062] & [0202])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the bandwidth of 320 MHZ supported for the communication as disclosed in Kim in view of Huang to use the multi resource unit (MRU) allocation of (3X996+484)-tone RUs composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU used within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication as disclosed in the teachings of Chen, because the motivation lies in Chen for offering flexibility in options for a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation which includes an option of using 3X996+484-tone RUs for offering an MRU allocation that supports greater bandwidths such as a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication.
While the combination of Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen discloses the resource unit allocation identifier identifying a resource unit (RU) allocation (Kim, see Fig. 22 i.e., RU allocation field 2215 Para’s [0300] & [0305]) and using the 3X996+484 MRU for the 320 MHz bandwidth EHT communication (Chen, see Para [0202]), the combination of Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen does not disclose the resource unit allocation identifier identifying the multiple resource unit (MRU). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Kim et al. US (2023/0016370).
Kim discloses an resource unit (RU) allocation field (i.e., “resource unit allocation identifier”) which identifies a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation for a PPDU bandwidth communication (see Para’s [0102] i.e., RUs allocated via an RU allocation subfield so as to receive data by the UE in the recognized RUs, [0150] i.e., The RU allocation subfield may…indicate a combination of RUs constituting each large RU, [0158-0161], [0425] i.e., when a total bandwidth for transmitting a PPDU is 160 MHz, the PPDU transmitted by applying OFDMA-MU may be transmitted via a CRU (or MRU) of 80+40 MHz allocated via an RU allocation subfield & [0456] when an MRU is allocated to the non-AP STA in the RU allocation subfield).
Kim suggests the multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation indicated in the RU allocation field is used for extremely high throughput (EHT) data communications which is capable of supporting an increased transmission rate and wider bandwidth for the data communication of a UE (see Para’s [0007], [0093], [0102], & [0158-0162])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the resource unit allocation identifier which identifies the RU allocation as disclosed in Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen to identify the multiple resource unit MRU allocation such as the 3X996+484 MRU used for the 320 MHz bandwidth EHT communication based on the teachings of Kim who discloses a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation used for a EHT communication may be indicated in a resource unit (RU) allocation field, because the motivation lies in Kim that the multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation indicated in the RU allocation field is used for extremely high throughput (EHT) data communications which is capable of supporting an increased transmission rate and wider bandwidth for the data communication of a UE.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses the communication method according to claim 10, wherein the link adaptation information further comprises: a resource unit allocation identifier configured to identify an allocated single resource unit or multiple resource unit. (see Fig. 22 i.e., RU allocation 2215 & Para [0300] i.e., the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication)
Regarding Claim 16, Kim discloses the communication method according to claim 9, wherein the link adaptation information comprises: an identifier of a number of spatial streams configured to identify a support of any one of 1 spatial stream to 16 spatial streams, (see Fig. 22 i.e., NSS 2212 & Para [0302] i.e., the NSS field 2212 may include information about the number of spatial streams preferred/recommended for UL MU communication…the AP may allocate a spatial stream indicated by the NSS field 2212 for UL MU communication of the user STA transmitting the NSS field 2212)
Regarding Claim 19, Kim discloses an electronic device (see Fig. 29 i.e., user-STA or an AP 2900 & Para [0338-0340]), comprising a memory (see Fig. 29 i.e., memory 2920 & Para’s [0343-0344]), a processor (see Fig. 29 i.e., processor 2910 & Para’s [0342-0343]), wherein the processor is configured to: determining a first message frame (see Fig. 22 & Para’s [0294-0296] i.e., The present specification proposes various control messages/frames. A control message frame may be configured with various messages/frames…For example, the following first option proposes an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax used for link adaptation), wherein a control field of a media access control (MAC) header of the first message frame comprises link adaptation information (see Fig. 22 i.e., modified high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) subfield includes link adaptation information such as recommended NSS, MCS, RU, BW etc.& Para’s [0294-0296] i.e., For example, the following first option proposes an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax used for link adaptation…The HLA and CAS subfields used herein are types of a control field inserted in a MAC header…Fig. 22 relates to an example of modifying a high-efficiency link adaptation (HLA) control subfield proposed in IEEE 802.11ax…An AP and/or a user STA may transmit the field of Fig. 22 & [0297-0308] i.e., link adaptation information of the field of Fig. 22 includes recommended NSS, MCS, RU, BW etc.)
suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (see Para’s [0007] i.e., extremely high throughput (EHT) & [0049] i.e., the present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard)
and send the first message frame, (see Para’s [0296] i.e., An AP and/or a user STA may transmit the field of Fig. 22 & [0319]) .
wherein the link adaptation information comprises: a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth (see Fig. 22 i.e., BW 2216 & Para [0303] i.e., the BW field 2216 may include information about a bandwidth (e.g., 20MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, or the like) preferred/recommended for UL MU communication)
a resource unit allocation identifier configured to identify an allocated single resource unit or multiple resource unit (see Fig. 22 i.e., RU allocation field 2215 & Para’s [0300] i.e., RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication, & [0305] i.e. the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about an RU preferred/recommended for DL communication of the user STA)
a MCS identifier configured to identify a recommended EHT-MCS (see Fig. 22 i.e., HE-MCS & Para’s [0049] i.e., The present specification may also be applied to a newly proposed EHT standard, [0301] i.e., Fig. 22 may include the HE-MCS field 2213 for the recommended MCS of the user STA in addition to the RU allocation filed 2215…the HE-MCS field may include information about a preferred/recommended MCS for UL MU communications, & [0306] i.e., HE-MCS field 2213 may include information about an MCS preferred/recommended for DL communication)
wherein the resource unit allocation identifier is used to identify an RU or MRU to which the recommended EHT-MCS applies (see Para’s [0300] i.e., the RU allocation field 2215 of Fig. 22 may include information about a preferred/recommended RU for UL MU communication, [0301] i.e., Fig. 22 may include the HE-MCS field 2213 for the recommended MCS of the user STA in addition to the RU allocation field 2215…the HE-MCS 2213 may include information about a preferred/recommended MCS for UL MU communication (i.e., recommended MCS applies to RU used for UL communication) & [0305-0306] i.e., RU preferred/recommended for the DL communication of the user STA…MCS preferred/recommended for the same DL communication, [0322], & [0327] i.e., An RU of the data field for STA2 in the DL PPDU is configured based on the RU allocation field 2215…An MCS of the data field for STA2 in the DL PPDU may be determined based on the HE-MCS field 2213)
Kim does not explicitly disclose the claim features of the electronic device comprising a computer program stored in the memory and runnable on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to determine and send the first message frame and does not disclose the claim feature of the first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605).
Huang discloses an electronic device comprising a computer program stored in the memory and runnable on the processor (see Para’s [0168] i.e., machine-readable medium may include any medium that is capable of storing instructions for execution by the machine 1700 to perform any one or more of the techniques of the present disclosure, & [0278-0282] i.e., computer-executable instructions), wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to determine and send a first message frame comprising link adaptation information suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0096], [0104], [0168], & [0278-0282])
Huang discloses wherein the link adaptation information comprises: a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz, (see Fig. 9 i.e., BW 905 & Para’s [0027], [0029], [0031], [0034] i.e., For extending channel width, the HT control information system may add an additional bit that extends Channel Width to indicate up to 320 MHz, [0096] i.e., HLA control needs additional two bits to extend the BW subfield 905 to accommodate information needed to support 320 MHz and NSS to 16 spatial streams & [0104] i.e., The HT control information system may add one additional bit to extend the BW subfield 905 to indicate up to 320 MHz)
(Huang suggests the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield (i.e., Fig. 9) may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links 345-355 (i.e., Fig. 3) may require additional bandwidth, (see Fig. 3, Fig. 8, & Para’s [0029], [0070], [0094], [0096], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the link adaptation information comprising a first bandwidth identifier configured to identify a support of a bandwidth included in the HLA control subfield of the first message frame suitable for extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication sent by the electronic device as disclosed in Kim to include the computer executable instructions of the electronic device and identify a support of a bandwidth of 320 MHz as indicated in the bandwidth field 905 of the HLA control subfield sent by the electronic device as disclosed in the teachings of Huang, because the motivation lies in Huang that the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links may require additional bandwidth.
While the combination of Kim in view of Huang discloses supporting a bandwidth of 320MHZ for the communication (Huang, see Para’s [0034], [0096], & [0104]), the combination of Kim in view of Huang does not disclose using a 3X996+484-tone MRU composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chen et al. US (2021/0045151).
Chen discloses for a 320 MHZ PPDU BW, a multiple resource unit (MRU) assignment within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth may include using (3X996+484)-tone MRU composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU, (see Para [0202] i.e., For example, for a total 320 MHz PPDU, there may be 343 options of sizes of RUs and locations within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth (i.e., 8 (3X996+484)-tone RUs (i.e., “MRU”)…aggregated RU within a PPDU BW for a 320 MHz channel bandwidth).
(Chen suggests offering flexibility in options for a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation which includes an option of using 3X996+484-tone RUs for offering an MRU allocation that supports greater bandwidths such as a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication, (see Para’s [0062] & [0202])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the bandwidth of 320 MHZ supported for the communication as disclosed in Kim in view of Huang to use the multi resource unit (MRU) allocation of (3X996+484)-tone RUs composed of three 996-tone RUs and one 484-tone RU used within a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication as disclosed in the teachings of Chen, because the motivation lies in Chen for offering flexibility in options for a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation which includes an option of using 3X996+484-tone RUs for offering an MRU allocation that supports greater bandwidths such as a 320 MHz channel bandwidth communication.
While the combination of Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen discloses the resource unit allocation identifier identifying a resource unit (RU) allocation (Kim, see Fig. 22 i.e., RU allocation field 2215 Para’s [0300] & [0305]) and using the 3X996+484 MRU for the 320 MHz bandwidth EHT communication (Chen, see Para [0202]), the combination of Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen does not disclose the resource unit allocation identifier identifying the multiple resource unit (MRU). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Kim et al. US (2023/0016370).
Kim discloses an resource unit (RU) allocation field (i.e., “resource unit allocation identifier”) which identifies a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation for a PPDU bandwidth communication (see Para’s [0102] i.e., RUs allocated via an RU allocation subfield so as to receive data by the UE in the recognized RUs, [0150] i.e., The RU allocation subfield may…indicate a combination of RUs constituting each large RU, [0158-0161], [0425] i.e., when a total bandwidth for transmitting a PPDU is 160 MHz, the PPDU transmitted by applying OFDMA-MU may be transmitted via a CRU (or MRU) of 80+40 MHz allocated via an RU allocation subfield & [0456] when an MRU is allocated to the non-AP STA in the RU allocation subfield).
(Kim suggests the multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation indicated in the RU allocation field is used for extremely high throughput (EHT) data communications which is capable of supporting an increased transmission rate and wider bandwidth for the data communication of a UE (see Para’s [0007], [0093], [0102], & [0158-0162])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the resource unit allocation identifier which identifies the RU allocation as disclosed in Kim in view of Huang, and further in view of Chen to identify the multiple resource unit MRU allocation such as the 3X996+484 MRU used for the 320 MHz bandwidth EHT communication based on the teachings of Kim who discloses a multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation used for a EHT communication may be indicated in a resource unit (RU) allocation field, because the motivation lies in Kim that the multiple resource unit (MRU) allocation indicated in the RU allocation field is used for extremely high throughput (EHT) data communications which is capable of supporting an increased transmission rate and wider bandwidth for the data communication of a UE.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kim in view of Chen, and further in view of Kim discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see Fig. 29 & Para [0343] i.e., the memory 2920 may include a storage medium) and a processor (see Fig. 29 i.e., processor 2910 & Para [0342-0343]) which causes the method according to claim 1 to be implemented (see rejection of claim 1 with respect to Kim), but does not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a computer program that, when executed by a processor implements the method. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605).
Huang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a computer program, that when executed by a processor (see Para’s [0168] i.e., machine-readable medium may include any medium that is capable of storing instructions for execution by the machine 1700 to perform any one or more of the techniques of the present disclosure, & [0278-0282] i.e., computer-executable instructions) causes the processor to determine and send a first message frame comprising link adaptation information suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0096], [0104], [0168], & [0278-0282]).
(Huang suggests the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield (i.e., Fig. 9) may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links 345-355 (i.e., Fig. 3) may require additional bandwidth, (see Fig. 3, Fig. 8, & Para’s [0029], [0070], [0094], [0096], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the electronic device comprising a computer-readable storage medium and processor configured to determine and send the first message frame according to the method of claim 1 as disclosed in of Kim in view of Chen, and further in view of Kim to store a computer program that when executed by the processor, cause the processor and computer-readable storage medium to determine and send the first message frame as performed by the electronic device disclosed in the teachings of Huang, because the motivation lies in Huang that the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links may require additional bandwidth.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Kim in view of Chen, and further in view of Kim discloses an electronic device (see Fig. 29 i.e., user-STA or an AP 2900 & Para [0338-0340]), comprising a memory (see Fig. 29 i.e., memory 2920 & Para’s [0343-0344]), a processor (see Fig. 29 i.e., processor 2910 & Para’s [0342-0343]), to implement the method according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 with respect to Kim), but does not disclose the claim features of the electronic device comprising a computer program stored in the memory and runnable on the processor, to implement the method when executing the computer program. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605).
Huang discloses an electronic device comprising a computer program stored in the memory and runnable on the processor (see Para’s [0168] i.e., machine-readable medium may include any medium that is capable of storing instructions for execution by the machine 1700 to perform any one or more of the techniques of the present disclosure, & [0278-0282] i.e., computer-executable instructions), wherein the processor executes the computer program to receive a first message frame comprising link adaptation information suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0096], [0104], [0168], & [0278-0282]).
(Huang suggests the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield (i.e., Fig. 9) may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links 345-355 (i.e., Fig. 3) may require additional bandwidth, (see Fig. 3, Fig. 8, & Para’s [0029], [0070], [0094], [0096], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the electronic device comprising a memory and processor configured to receive the first message frame and perform a communication operation according to the first message frame as disclosed in Kim in view of Chen, and further in view of Kim to be performed by comprising a computer program stored in the memory and runnable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to receive the first message frame as performed by the electronic device disclosed in the teachings of Huang, because the motivation lies in Huang that the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links may require additional bandwidth.
Regarding Claim 22, Kim in view of Chen, and further in view of Kim discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see Fig. 29 & Para [0343] i.e., the memory 2920 may include a storage medium) and a processor (see Fig. 29 i.e., processor 2910 & Para [0342-0343]) which causes the method according to claim 9 to be implemented (see rejection of claim 9 with respect to Kim), but does not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a computer program that, when executed by a processor implements the method. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605).
Huang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a computer program (see Para’s [0168] i.e., machine-readable medium may include any medium that is capable of storing instructions for execution by the machine 1700 to perform any one or more of the techniques of the present disclosure, & [0278-0282] i.e., computer-executable instructions), that when executed by a processor causes the processor to receive a first message frame comprising link adaptation information suitable for an extreme high-throughput communication, (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0096], [0104], [0168], & [0278-0282]).
(Huang suggests the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield (i.e., Fig. 9) may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links 345-355 (i.e., Fig. 3) may require additional bandwidth, (see Fig. 3, Fig. 8, & Para’s [0029], [0070], [0094], [0096], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the electronic device comprising a computer-readable storage medium and processor configured to receive the first message frame and perform a communication operation according to the first message frame according to the method of claim 9 as disclosed in Kim in view of Chen, and further in view of Kim to be performed by storing a computer program that when executed by the processor, cause the processor and computer-readable storage medium to receive the first message frame as performed by the electronic device disclosed in the teachings of Huang, because the motivation lies in Huang that the bandwidth of 320 MHz indicated as supported in the BW subfield 905 in the HLA control subfield may be required for MLD devices for supporting extreme high-throughput (EHT) communication in which one or more links may require additional bandwidth.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US (2021/0068197) in view of Huang et al. US (2021/0136605), further in view of Chen et al. US (2021/0045151), and further in view of Kim et al. US (2023/0016370) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Huang et al. US (2019/0238259), and further in view of Anwyl et al. US (2017/0230220).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Kim discloses the communication method according to claims 1 and 9, including wherein the link adaptation information comprises: a first modulation mode identifier (see Fig. 22 i.e., HE-MCS 2213 & Para [0301] i.e., MCS index is included in the HE-MCS field 2213), but does not disclose the claim feature of the first modulation mode identifier configured to identify a modulation mode of a binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation (BPSK-DCM) or a modulation mode of a binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation-duplication (BPSK-DCM-DUP). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2019/0238259).
Huang discloses a first modulation mode identifier such as an MCS index value configured to identify a modulation mode of a binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation (BPSK-DCM) (see Para’s [0112] & [0113] i.e., A row for a HE-MCS index value (e.g., 0, 1, 2,…) may include choices for dual carrier modulation (DCM) being equal to 1 or 0; a type of modulation (e.g., BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, 64-QAM, 256-QAM, 1024-QAM).
(Huang suggests the MCS index value may indicate a selection in a table that includes link adaptation information such as the number of spatial streams, DCM, and type of modulation used for the communication for indicating link adaptation information, (see Para’s [0112-0113])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first modulation mode identifier included in the frame such as the MCS index value as disclosed in Kim in view of Huang, further in view of Chen, and further in view of Kim to identify a modulation mode of a binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation (BPSK-DCM) which is identified by the MCS index value disclosed in the teachings of Huang, because the motivation lies in Huang that the MCS index value may indicate a selection in a table that includes link adaptation information such as the number of spatial streams, DCM, and type of modulation used for the communication for indicating link adaptation information.
While the combination of Kim in view of Huang suggests a binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation (BPSK-DCM) can be indicated by the MCS index value, (Huang (‘259), see Para [0113]), the references combined does not explicitly disclose the binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation (BPSK-DCM) mode. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Anwyl et al. US (2017/0230220).
Anwyl discloses binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation (BPSK-DCM) may be used as a modulation scheme for a data transmission (see Para’s [0028], [0031], & [0033-0034] i.e., For DCM BPSK modulation, data is duplicated and modulated with no special mapping, e.g., the same BPSK mapping is used for the lower half of the subcarriers and the upper half of the subcarriers).
(Anwyl suggests DCM is a solution to deal with narrow band interferences and for range extension and a lower or reduced PAPR is achieved by using BPSK-DCM modulation mode, (see Para [0008], [0022], [0028], & [0031])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first modulation mode identifier such as the MCS index value disclosed in the teachings of Kim in view of Huang, further in view of Chen, further in view of Kim, and further in view of Huang to identify the binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation (BPSK-DCM) mode as disclosed in the teachings of Anwyl, because the motivation lies in Anwyl that DCM is a solution to deal with narrow band interferences and for range extension and a lower or reduced PAPR is achieved by using the BPSK-DCM modulation mode.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, the combination of Kim in view of Huang, further in view of Chen, further in view of Kim, and further in view of Anwyl discloses the communication method according to claims 6 and 14, including wherein the link adaptation information further comprises: a DCM identification bit configured to identify a usability of a dual carrier modulation in the frame (Kim, see Fig. 22 i.e., DCM & Para’s [0094] i.e., dual subcarrier modulation) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the link adaptation information further comprises: a dual carrier modulation (DCM) identification bit configured to identify a usability of a dual carrier modulation, and wherein when the dual carrier modulation (DCM) identification bit is set to indicate a use of the dual carrier modulation, the first modulation mode identifier is set to the modulation mode of the BPSK-DCM or the modulation mode of the BPSK-DCM-DUP. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Huang et al. US (2019/0238259).
Huang discloses wherein the link adaptation information further comprises: a dual carrier modulation (DCM) identification bit configured to identify a usability of a dual carrier modulation (see Para [0113] i.e., A row for a HE-MCS index value may include choices for dual carrier modulation (DCM) being equal to 1 or 0; a type of modulation (e.g., BPSK)), and wherein when the dual carrier modulation (DCM) identification bit is set to indicate a use of the dual carrier modulation (see Para [0113] i.e., dual carrier modulation (DCM) being equal to 1), the first modulation mode identifier is set to the modulation mode of the BPSK-DCM (see Para [0113] i.e., A row for a HE-MCS index value may include choices for dual carrier modulation (DCM) being equal to 1 or 0; a type of modulation (e.g., BPSK) (i.e., “BPSK-DCM”)).
(Huang suggests the MCS index value may indicate a selection in a table that includes link adaptation information such as the number of spatial streams, DCM, and type of modulation used for the communication for indicating link adaptation information, (see Para’s [0112-0113])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first modulation mode identifier included such as the MCS index value and the dual carrier modulation (DCM) identification bit configured to identify a usability of a dual carrier modulation in the frame as disclosed in Kim in view of Huang, further in view of Chen, further in view of Kim, and further in view of Anwyl to identify a modulation mode of a binary phase shift keying-dual carrier modulation (BPSK-DCM) which is identified by the MCS index value and when the DCM identification bit is set to indicate a use of the dual carrier modulation as disclosed in the teachings of Huang, because the motivation lies in Huang that the MCS index value may indicate a selection in a table that includes link adaptation information such as the number of spatial streams, DCM, and type of modulation used for the communication for indicating link adaptation 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 ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights