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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation fails to exclude non-statutory embodiments such as a transitory signal.
A cursory review of the applicant's original disclosure provides no explicit definition for the phrase tangible computer readable medium. Therefore, the term within the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.
As a wire, a cable or a transmission line is a tangible computer-readable medium (as it can be touched by an individual) which can propagate an electromagnetic signal, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “tangible computer-readable medium” clearly encompasses a non-statutiory transitory signal. See in re Nuijten. (CAFC 2007-1371)
Therefore, the claim is non-statutory under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2019/0238195).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Liu teaches an apparatus comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause an Access Point (AP) (¶ [0056], see specifically AP) to:
set Resource Unit (RU) allocation information in a Signal (SIG) field, the RU allocation information configured to indicate an RU allocation for a user (¶ [0034], see specifically HE-SIG-A and RU allocation);
set Unequal Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) (UEM) information for the user in the SIG field, the UEM information for the user configured to indicate an assignment of a plurality of MCSs to a plurality of frequency sub-channels in the RU allocation for the user (¶ [0030], see specifically unequal MCS), respectively; and
transmit a Downlink (DL) Physical layer (PHY) Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) comprising the SIG field and a data field for the user (¶ [0031], see specifically payload and preamble),
wherein the data field for the user is configured according to the assignment of the plurality of MCSs to the plurality of frequency sub-channels in the RU allocation for the user (¶ [0049], see specifically unequal MCS).
Regarding Claim 2 and 20, Liu teaches the AP to set a user field for the user and at least one UEM field for the user in the SIG field, wherein the user field for the user is configured to indicate that the user has a UEM assignment, wherein the at least one UEM field for the user comprises the UEM information for the user (¶ [0036] – [0039], see specifically mcs assigned to the station.)
Regarding Claim 14, Liu teaches the at least one UEM field for the user is after all user fields in the SIG field (Figure 1A, see specifically HE-SIG-B, and note the location within the packet after the other SIG fields).
Regarding Claim 15, Liu teaches the AP to set the UEM information for the user in a plurality of user-fields for the user in the SIG field, the plurality of user-fields for the user configured to indicate the plurality of MCSs, respectively (¶ [0051], see specifically plurality of user field and group based MCS scheme.)
Regarding Claim 16, Liu teaches each of the plurality of user-fields for the user comprises a same station (STA) identifier (ID) (STA-ID) to identify the user (¶ [0051], see specifically STA ID and AID.)
Regarding Claim 17, Liu teaches at least one radio to transmit the DL PPDU (figure 5, see specifically transceiver.)
Regarding Claim 18, Liu teaches comprising one or more antennas connected to the radio, and a processor to execute instructions of an operating system of the AP (figure 5, 501-504, and
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-5, 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0238195) in view of Zhang (US 2024/0178931)
Regarding Claim 3, Liu fails to explicitly teach the AP to set a predefined MCS type value in an MCS type subfield in the user field for the user, the predefined MCS type value to indicate that the user has the UEM assignment
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the AP to set a predefined MCS type value in an MCS type subfield in the user field for the user, the predefined MCS type value to indicate that the user has the UEM assignment (¶ [0105] - [0107], see specifically type and MCS index.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use indexes and types to convey the information in the system of Liu as taught by Zhang.
The motivation is that predetermined tables allow for reduced initial configuration when connecting to a access point as the information to use unequal MCS would already be present on any given UE.
Regarding Claim 4, Liu fails to explicitly teach the predefined MCS type value is configured to indicate a type of the UEM assignment from a plurality of predefined UEM assignment types
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the predefined MCS type value is configured to indicate a type of the UEM assignment from a plurality of predefined UEM assignment types (¶ [0105] - [0107], see specifically type and MCS index.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use indexes and types to convey the information in the system of Liu as taught by Zhang.
The motivation is that predetermined tables allow for reduced initial configuration when connecting to a access point as the information to use unequal MCS would already be present on any given UE.
Regarding Claim 5, Liu fails to explicitly teach the plurality of predefined UEM assignment types comprises at least one of a UEM assignment over frequency sub-channels, a UEM assignment over spatial streams, or a UEM assignment over both frequency sub- channels and spatial streams
Zhang teaches the plurality of predefined UEM assignment types comprises at least one of a UEM assignment over frequency sub-channels, a UEM assignment over spatial streams, or a UEM assignment over both frequency sub- channels and spatial streams (¶ [0105] - [0107], see specifically type, special stream and MCS index.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use indexes and types to convey the information in the system of Liu as taught by Zhang.
The motivation is that predetermined tables allow for reduced initial configuration when connecting to a access point as the information to use unequal MCS would already be present on any given UE.
Regarding Claim 6, Liu fails to explicitly teach to cause the AP to set a UEM field indicator subfield in the user field for the user, wherein the UEM field indicator subfield is configured to indicate a position of a first UEM field of the at least one UEM field for the user in the SIG field.
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches to cause the AP to set a UEM field indicator subfield in the user field for the user, wherein the UEM field indicator subfield is configured to indicate a position of a first UEM field of the at least one UEM field for the user in the SIG field (¶ [0111], see specifically bit postion.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use indexes and types to convey the information in the system of Liu as taught by Zhang.
The motivation is that predetermined tables allow for reduced initial configuration when connecting to a access point as the information to use unequal MCS would already be present on any given UE.
Regarding Claim 13, Liu fails to explicitly teach causing the AP to set a predefined MCS index in an MCS subfield in the user field for the user, wherein the predefined MCS index is configured to indicate that the user has the UEM assignment.
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches causing the AP to set a predefined MCS index in an MCS subfield in the user field for the user, wherein the predefined MCS index is configured to indicate that the user has the UEM assignment (¶ [0105] - [0107], see specifically type and MCS index.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use indexes and types to convey the information in the system of Liu as taught by Zhang.
The motivation is that predetermined tables allow for reduced initial configuration when connecting to a access point as the information to use unequal MCS would already be present on any given UE.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0238195) in view of Yu (US 2023/0388165).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu fails to explicitly teach the UEM field for the user is configured according to a UEM field format comprising a plurality of MCS subfields
Yu from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the UEM field for the user is configured according to a UEM field format comprising a plurality of MCS subfields (figure 4a, note the multiple modulation modes.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have multiple subfields to assign multiple MCS’es in the system of Liu as taught by Yu.
The motivation is that it allows for better granularity in MCS assignment in the system of Liu
Regarding Claim 9, Liu fails to explicitly teach the AP to set a spatial configuration subfield in the user field for the user to indicate an assignment of a plurality of spatial streams for the user, wherein the UEM information for the user is configured to indicate an assignment of the plurality of MCSs to the plurality of spatial streams over the plurality of frequency sub-channels
Yu from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the AP to set a spatial configuration subfield in the user field for the user to indicate an assignment of a plurality of spatial streams for the user, wherein the UEM information for the user is configured to indicate an assignment of the plurality of MCSs to the plurality of spatial streams over the plurality of frequency sub-channels (Figure 4A, see specifically number of special streams).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have multiple subfields to assign multiple MCS’es in the system of Liu as taught by Yu.
The motivation is that it allows for better granularity in MCS assignment in the system of Liu
Claim(s) 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0238195) in view of Yu (US 2023/0388165) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lou (U.S. 2026/0181690)
Regarding Claim 8, Liu fails to explicitly teach a first-in-order UEM field of the at least one UEM field for the user comprises a frequency segment subfield configured to indicate a segmentation of the RU allocation for the user into the plurality of frequency sub- channels.
Lou from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a first-in-order UEM field of the at least one UEM field for the user comprises a frequency segment subfield configured to indicate a segmentation of the RU allocation for the user into the plurality of frequency sub- channels (¶ [0160], see specifically different MCS to different STA’s on different subchannels. ¶ [0083], see specifically segment parser.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have different MCS on a frequency and stream basis in the system of Liu as taught by Lou.
The motivation is that dividing data between sub-channels allows for better channel utilization as it allows the entire bandwidth to be used at the same time.
Regarding Claim 10, Liu fails to explicitly teach the at least one UEM field for the user comprises a plurality of UEM fields for the user, wherein a UEM field of the plurality of UEM fields for the user comprises frequency-channel specific UEM information corresponding to a frequency sub-channel of the plurality of frequency sub-channels.
Lou from the same or similar field of endeavor at least one UEM field for the user comprises a plurality of UEM fields for the user, wherein a UEM field of the plurality of UEM fields for the user comprises frequency-channel specific UEM information corresponding to a frequency sub-channel of the plurality of frequency sub-channels (¶ [0160], see specifically different MCS to different STA’s.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have different MCS on a frequency and stream basis in the system of Liu as taught by Lou.
The motivation is that dividing data between sub-channels allows for better channel utilization as it allows the entire bandwidth to be used at the same time.
Regarding Claim 11, Liu fails to explicitly teach the frequency-channel specific UEM information comprises a plurality of frequency-channel specific MCSs for the plurality of spatial streams over the frequency sub-channel.
Lou from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the frequency-channel specific UEM information comprises a plurality of frequency-channel specific MCSs for the plurality of spatial streams over the frequency sub-channel (¶ [0160], see specifically different MCS to different STA’s.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have different MCS on a frequency and stream basis in the system of Liu as taught by Lou.
The motivation is that dividing data between sub-channels allows for better channel utilization as it allows the entire bandwidth to be used at the same time.
Regarding Claim 12, Liu fails to explicitly teach the at least one UEM field for the user comprises a first UEM field and a second UEM field, wherein the first UEM field comprises a first plurality of MCSs for the plurality of spatial streams over a first frequency sub-channel, wherein the second UEM field comprises a second plurality of MCSs for the plurality of spatial streams over a second frequency sub- channel.
Lou from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the at least one UEM field for the user comprises a first UEM field and a second UEM field, wherein the first UEM field comprises a first plurality of MCSs for the plurality of spatial streams over a first frequency sub-channel, wherein the second UEM field comprises a second plurality of MCSs for the plurality of spatial streams over a second frequency sub- channel (¶ [0160], see specifically different MCS to different STA’s.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have different MCS on a frequency and stream basis in the system of Liu as taught by Lou.
The motivation is that dividing data between sub-channels allows for better channel utilization as it allows the entire bandwidth to be used at the same time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights