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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2021/139821 (filed 12/20/2021) that claims foreign priority to an application of CHINA: 202110026480.9 (filed 01/08/2021).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou et al. (US 20190349232 A1, hereinafter Cariou), in view of Cariou et al. (US 20210045095 A1, hereinafter Cariou_095).
Regarding claim 1, Cariou teaches a groupcast feedback method, comprising (in general, see fig. 18 in view of fig. 8 and their respective paragraph; see also one or more of figures 12, 14, 15, and 16 that fig. 18 occasionally refers to):
sending, by an access point, a groupcast data frame (Cariou, see at least para. 193 and fig. 18, “... e.g., MPDUs 1822. The MPDUs 1822 may include sequence numbers 1823...”);
sending, by the access point, a groupcast feedback trigger frame for scheduling a plurality of stations in a groupcast group to indicate whether the groupcast data frame is correctly decoded (Cariou, see at least para. 193-194 and fig. 8, “...The DL PPDU 1812 may be a trigger frame that includes a schedule that indicates to the HE station 504 how to decode the data, e.g., MPDUs 1822. The MPDUs 1822 may include sequence numbers 1823...”);
and
wherein when the groupcast data frame is an aggregate-media access control protocol data unit (AMPDU) (Cariou, see at least para. 193 and fig. 18, “... e.g., MPDUs 1822. The MPDUs 1822 may include sequence numbers 1823...”, note that fig. 18 shows that MPDUs 1822 are multiple and sent together with sequence numbers (examiner interprets this as aggregated MPDUs)),
the method further comprises:
sending, by the access point, a block acknowledgement request trigger frame to at least one second station determined, based on the groupcast feedback trigger frame, to have incorrectly decoded the AMPDU (Cariou, see at least para. 194 and fig. 18 along with para. 190, “...The method 1800 continues at operation 1856 with the HE AP 502 transmitting DL PPDU 1824. The DL PPDU 1824 may be a trigger frame. In some embodiments, the DL PPDU 1824 may be part of DL PPDU 1812, e.g., DL PPDU 1812 may be a DL MU trigger frame that includes information for the HE stations 504 to transmit a NDP BA response 1818...”, note that examiner interprets DL PPDU 1824 as “block acknowledgement request trigger frame”, and DL PPDU 1812 as “groupcast feedback trigger frame”, also note that “FIG. 18 illustrates a method 1800 for short BA with NDPs...”);
and
receiving, by the access point on a resource unit associated with the at least one second station, a block acknowledgement frame from the at least one second station, wherein the block acknowledgement frame indicates an incorrectly decoded media access control protocol data unit (MPDU) in the AMPDU (Cariou, see at least para. 197-198 in view of fig. 8, “...HE station 504.1 and HE station 504.2 may determine RUs 808 based on how many MPDUs (e.g., number of packets 1704) to BA and a starting RU 808. HE station 504.1 and HE station 504.2 may have an RU to acknowledge each sequence number 1823 and/or an RU to acknowledge that all sequence numbers 1823 were received...”, note that “...one RU 808 is used per MPDU that is being acknowledged, e.g., 12 tones...”).
Cariou does not explicitly teach determining, by the access point when detecting no energy on a first subcarrier and a second subcarrier, that a first station incorrectly decodes the groupcast data frame; or determining, by the access point when detecting energy on a second subcarrier, that a first station incorrectly decodes the groupcast data frame; wherein the first subcarrier is a subcarrier associated with the first station in a first subcarrier set, the second subcarrier is a subcarrier associated with the first station in a second subcarrier set, and the first station is any one of the plurality of stations.
Cariou_095 teaches
determining, by the access point when detecting no energy on a first subcarrier and a second subcarrier, that a first station incorrectly decodes the groupcast data frame (Cariou_095, see at least fig. 4 and para. 71-72, for one non-limiting example, “...If STA 1 observes no energy on an allocated tone set it determines that a particular frame was not correctly received...”);
or
determining, by the access point when detecting energy on a second subcarrier, that a first station incorrectly decodes the groupcast data frame (Cariou_095, see at least para. 27, for another non-limiting example, “...In another proposal, NAK based Acknowledgement scheme for reliable multicast where a STA in the multicast group signals it did not receive a particular frame by transmitting energy on an LTF corresponding to an assigned resource block...”);
wherein
the first subcarrier is a subcarrier associated with the first station in a first subcarrier set, the second subcarrier is a subcarrier associated with the first station in a second subcarrier set, and the first station is any one of the plurality of stations (Cariou_095, see at least fig. 4 and para. 71-72, “...Referring to FIG. 4, there is shown an example of the NDP based Ack usage. This is an example of an NDP based Ack scheme using EHT LTFs. In this figure, STA 1 is transmitting two DL frames to STA 2 and one to STA 3 inside a DL MU PPDU using OFDMA. Each frame identifies a set of tones in which the acknowledgment can be sent...”, note that “...The EHT LTF consists of several tone sets out of which STA 2 picks tone sets #1 and #2 to acknowledge each of its frames...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Cariou_095 into the method of Cariou for providing low overhead transmissions.
Regarding claim 2, Cariou in view of Cariou_095 teaches claim 1,
Cariou further teaches wherein the block acknowledgement request trigger frame is for scheduling the at least one second station to feed back, on a resource unit (RU) associated with the at least one second station, a sequence number index of an incorrectly decoded media access control protocol data unit (MPDU) in the AMPDU. (Cariou, see at least para. 197-198 along with para. 194, “...HE station 504.1 and HE station 504.2 may determine RUs 808 based on how many MPDUs (e.g., number of packets 1704) to BA and a starting RU 808. HE station 504.1 and HE station 504.2 may have an RU to acknowledge each sequence number 1823 and/or an RU to acknowledge that all sequence numbers 1823 were received...”, note that “...at operation 1856 with the HE AP 502 transmitting DL PPDU 1824. The DL PPDU 1824 may be a trigger frame. In some embodiments, the DL PPDU 1824 may be part of DL PPDU 1812, e.g., DL PPDU 1812 may be a DL MU trigger frame that includes information for the HE stations 504 to transmit a NDP BA response 1818...”, and note that examiner interprets DL PPDU 1824 as “block acknowledgement request trigger frame”)
Regarding claim 3, Cariou in view of Cariou_095 teaches claim 2,
Cariou further teaches the groupcast feedback trigger frame comprises a third field indicating a first network allocation vector NAV (Cariou, see at least para. 198 in view of para. 111, “...HE station 504.3 may have set a duration to defer based on the TXOP 1812, which may be a duration based on a duration (e.g., 904) of DL PPDU 1812...”, note that “...The duration field 904 may include information regarding how long wireless devices (e.g., HE APs 502, HE stations 504, and/or legacy devices 506) not identified in the trigger frame 900 should set their network allocation vectors [i.e. NAV]...”),
duration of the first NAV is a sum of: a duration of a groupcast feedback report frame, a duration of the block acknowledgement request trigger frame, a duration of the block acknowledgement frame, and a short interframe space (SIFS) (Cariou, see at least fig. 18 and para. 190, e.g. TXOP 1808, note that fig. 18 shows that TXOP 1808 is a duration including NDP as well as BA responses in 1860, NDP feedback report poll as well as NDP feedback report BA trigger frame in 1854 and 1856 combined or alone, and SIFS in 1858), and
the groupcast feedback report frame is a response frame of the groupcast feedback trigger frame (Cariou, see at least para. 198 along with para. 190, “...at operation 1860 with HE station 504.1 and HE station 504.2 transmitting NDP BA response 1818.1 and NDP BA response 1818.2, respectively. The NDP BA responses 1818 may be the same or similar as NDP feedback response 1618, 1518, 1418, and/or NDP 1230 and response 1210. The NDP BA responses 1818 may be transmitted on one or more RUs 808 as disclosed in conjunction with FIG. 8...”, note that FIG. 18 illustrates a method 1800 for short BA with NDPs).
Regarding claim 5, Cariou in view of Cariou_095 teaches claim 1,
Cariou further teaches the groupcast feedback trigger frame comprises a first field, and when a value of the first field is a first value, the first field indicates that a type of the groupcast feedback trigger frame is a groupcast with retries acknowledgement request. (Cariou, see at least para. 120-121, e.g. trigger type field 1002 may indicate Groupcast With Retries (GCR))
Regarding claim 6, Cariou in view of Cariou_095 teaches claim 1,
Cariou further teaches the groupcast feedback trigger frame comprises a second field indicating the groupcast data frame (Cariou, see at least para. 189 of fig. 17, e.g. “...The starting sequence number and/or TID 1702 may be a starting sequence number of DL MPDUs that may have been transmitted to a HE station 504 and/or HE AP 502, or a TID 1702 of DL MPDUs...”)
Regarding claim 7, Cariou in view of Cariou_095 teaches claim 1,
Cariou further teaches the second field comprises a first subfield and a second subfield, the first subfield is for carrying a sequence number index of a start data frame in the groupcast data frame, and the second subfield is for carrying a sequence number index of an end data frame in the groupcast data frame (Cariou, see at least para. 189 of fig. 17, e.g. “...The starting sequence number and/or TID 1702 may be a starting sequence number of DL MPDUs that may have been transmitted to a HE station 504 and/or HE AP 502, or a TID 1702 of DL MPDUs. The number of packets 1704 may be a number of packets that were included in the DL MPDUs...”)
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 8 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be the first station of claim 8 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the access point of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14, in view of claim 8 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 17, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, and 3, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, Cariou in view of Cariou_095 also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (Cariou, see at least fig. 1-2), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claims 18, 19, and 20, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 8, 9, and 10, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, Cariou in view of Cariou_095 also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (Cariou, see at least fig. 1-2), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou in view of Cariou_095, and further in view of Yongho SEOK (US 20150382333 A1, hereinafter SEOK).
Regarding claim 4, Cariou in view of Cariou_095 teaches claim 1,
Cariou further teaches the groupcast feedback trigger frame comprises a third field indicating a first network allocation vector (NAV), a duration of the first NAV is a sum of one or more items, and the groupcast feedback report frame is a response frame of the groupcast feedback trigger frame (see claim 3 rejection above)
Cariou in view of Cariou_095 does not teach a duration of the first NAV is a sum of a duration of a groupcast feedback report frame and a short interframe space (SIFS).
SEOK teaches a duration of the first NAV is a sum of a duration of a groupcast feedback report frame and a short interframe space (SIFS) (see at least para. 240 along with para. 124, “...If the response frame type is NDP Control Response, it may be estimated/assumed that the value of the duration field of the MAC header of the received frame will be the value of PLCP header transmission time+SIFS (PLCP header transmission time plus SIFS) if present. Since an NDP frame indicates a frame composed only of the PLCP header, the PLCP header transmission time may be expressed as an NDP frame transmission time (i.e. NDPTxTime). Therefore, if the value of the response indication parameter indicates NDP Control Response, the NAV value (or VCS time length value) is set to NDPTxTime+aSIFSTime...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate SEOK into the method of Cariou in view of Cariou_095 for preventing resource waste of resources and correctly performing frame switching (SEOK, para. 21)
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 8 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 18, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465