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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 November 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alpert et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0184233), hereinafter Alpert.
Regarding Claim 1, Alpert discloses an access point (AP) (Figure 8 and paragraph 0064 – hardware diagram for an access point) comprising:
one or more processors (Figure 8 – controller / microprocessor 820; paragraph 0069); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Figure 8 – memory / storage cache 816; paragraphs 0065 and 0068), cause the AP to:
transmit a trigger frame soliciting one or more trigger-based (TB) physical protocol data unit (PPDU) from a first station (STA) (paragraph 0031 – the AP transmits a trigger frame at the beginning of a control period; paragraph 0040 and Figures 4A-4E – the data structures utilized to report acknowledgement status (as part of control information) provided to a station; paragraph 0028 – the sending STA will send PPDUs to the receiving STA (i.e., the AP)), the trigger frame comprising:
a first indication associated with a first uplink resource allocation for the first STA (Figure 4B-4C and paragraph 0042 – the signaling comprises multi-band common information comprising common band information with information about the block ack that are common to each of the two or more bands, as well as a band list that identifies all the bands to which the acknowledgement will apply);
a second indication associated with a second uplink resource allocation for the first STA (Figure 4B-4C and paragraph 0042 – the signaling comprises multi-band common information comprising common band information with information about the block ack that are common to each of the two or more bands, as well as a band list that identifies all the bands to which the acknowledgement will apply); and
a third indication indicating whether an aggregated acknowledgment mode is enabled (Figure 6 at step 608 and paragraph 0049 – the AP indicates to the station that aggregated BA (blockack) is possible for multi-band transmissions; Figure 4C and paragraph 0042 – the band value provides a value or bit that indicates whether a blockack for that band applies); and
based on the aggregated acknowledgment mode being enabled and on condition of receiving, from the first STA and in response to the trigger frame, a first TB PPDU, via the first uplink resource allocation and a second TB PPDU, via the second uplink resource allocation, transmit, a BlockAck (BA) frame to the first STA (Figure 6 at steps 612-624 – the receiving station receives first and second data packets (PPDUs) over different first and second bands and sends a block ack to the sending station).
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an access point (AP) to perform the same functions as Claim 1. Alpert discloses a memory / storage cache storing instructions for the processor, as shown in Figure 8 (memory / storage cache 816) and described in paragraphs 0065 and 0068. The remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 3 and 20, Alpert discloses the BA frame acknowledges the first TB PPDU and the second TB PPDU from the first STA (Figure 6 at steps 612-624 – the receiving station receives first and second data packets (PPDUs) over different first and second bands and sends a block ack to the sending station).
Regarding Claim 4, Alpert discloses wherein the trigger frame comprises a Common Info field (Figure 4B and paragraph 0042 – multi-band common information 428), and wherein the third indication is provided in the Common Info field (Figure 4C and paragraph 0042 – the multi-band common information comprises a band value field (444) that indicates whether a blockack for that band applies).
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.
Claims 2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Fellhauer et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0334817), hereinafter Fellhauer.
Regarding Claim 2, Alpert discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Alpert does not disclose the first uplink resource allocation and the second uplink resource allocation are associated with different time resources. In an analogous art, Fellhauer discloses this. Specifically, Fellhauer discloses a respective station (e.g., STA1) transmitting multiple uplink PPDUs in separate time slots to a station prior to receiving a BlockAck (Figure 7 and paragraph 0086). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 6, Alpert discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Alpert does not disclose the trigger frame further comprises a fourth indication associated with a third uplink resource allocation for a second STA. In an analogous art, Fellhauer discloses this. Specifically, Fellhauer discloses an AP sending a downlink Trigger with Schedule (TWS) for multiple stations in a network (Figure 7 and paragraph 0086; paragraph 0059 for description of how the TWS allocates uplink resources to respective stations). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Alpert and Fellhauer further discloses the third uplink resource allocation is associated with a same time resource as the first uplink resource allocation or the second uplink resource allocation (Fellhauer – as shown in Figure 7, multiple stations can transmit UL PPDUs in a respective time slot). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Alpert and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Alpert and Fellhauer further discloses the third uplink resource allocation is associated with a same time resource as the first uplink resource allocation but with a different frequency resource or a different spatial resource than the first uplink resource allocation (Fellhauer – as shown in Figure 7 and further described in paragraph 0066, multiple stations can transmit UL PPDUs in a respective time slot on separate frequencies (i.e., via frequency hopping)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Alpert and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Alpert and Fellhauer further discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the AP to transmit the BA frame on further condition of receiving, from the second STA, a third frame via the third uplink resource allocation (Fellhauer – as shown in Figure 7, a downlink blockack is transmitted to all stations upon receipt of the uplink PPDUs). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Alpert and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Claims 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Seok (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0334817).
Regarding Claim 5, Alpert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Alpert further discloses wherein the aggregated acknowledgment mode is enabled (Figure 6 at step 608 and paragraph 0049 – the AP indicates to the station that aggregated BA (blockack) is possible for multi-band transmissions; Figure 4C and paragraph 0042 – the band value provides a value or bit that indicates whether a blockack for that band applies). However, Alpert does not disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the AP to: read an ACK policy indicator subfield of the second TB PPDU; and on condition of the ACK policy indicator subfield having a pre-determined value, transmit the BA frame to the first STA. In an analogous art, Seok discloses this. Specifically, Seok discloses one WLAN device (e.g., a station) transmitting a data frame (i.e., PPDU) to another WLAN device (e.g., an AP) with an ACK policy subfield that can be set to “No Ack”, where the addressed recipient takes no action upon the receipt of the frame (paragraph 0039 and Table 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert and Seok. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce control signaling and avoid signaling collisions in a WLAN environment (see paragraphs 0043-0044 of Seok).
Regarding Claim 10, Alpert discloses a station (STA) (Figure 8 and paragraph 0064 – hardware diagram for an station) comprising:
one or more processors (Figure 8 – controller / microprocessor 820; paragraph 0069); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Figure 8 – memory / storage cache 816; paragraphs 0065 and 0068), cause the STA to:
receive, from an access point (AP), a trigger frame soliciting one or more trigger-based (TB) physical protocol data unit (PPDU) from the STA (paragraph 0031 – the STA receives a trigger frame at the beginning of a control period; paragraph 0040 and Figures 4A-4E – the data structures utilized to report acknowledgement status (as part of control information) provided to a station; paragraph 0028 – the sending STA will send PPDUs to the receiving STA (i.e., the AP)), the trigger frame including:
a first indication associated with a first uplink resource allocation for the STA (Figure 4B-4C and paragraph 0042 – the signaling comprises multi-band common information comprising common band information with information about the block ack that are common to each of the two or more bands, as well as a band list that identifies all the bands to which the acknowledgement will apply);
a second indication associated with a second uplink resource allocation for the STA (Figure 4B-4C and paragraph 0042 – the signaling comprises multi-band common information comprising common band information with information about the block ack that are common to each of the two or more bands, as well as a band list that identifies all the bands to which the acknowledgement will apply); and
a third indication indicating whether an aggregated acknowledgment mode is enabled (Figure 6 at step 608 and paragraph 0049 – the AP indicates to the station that aggregated BA (blockack) is possible for multi-band transmissions; Figure 4C and paragraph 0042 – the band value provides a value or bit that indicates whether a blockack for that band applies);
transmit, to the AP, in response to the trigger frame:
a first TB PPDU, via the first uplink resource allocation (Figure 7, step 712 – a first data packet is sent on a first band); and
a second TB PPDU, via the second uplink resource allocation (Figure 7, step 714 – a second data packet is sent on a different second band).
However, Alpert does not disclose wherein, based on the aggregated acknowledgment mode being enabled, the first TB PPDU comprises an acknowledgment policy indicator set to indicate no acknowledgment from the AP. In an analogous art, Seok discloses this. Specifically, Seok discloses one WLAN device (e.g., a station) transmitting a data frame (i.e., PPDU) to another WLAN device (e.g., an AP) with an ACK policy subfield that can be set to “No Ack”, where the addressed recipient takes no action upon the receipt of the frame (paragraph 0039 and Table 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert and Seok. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce control signaling and avoid signaling collisions in a WLAN environment (see paragraphs 0043-0044 of Seok).
Regarding Claim 11, Alpert discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA to receive, from the AP, a BlockAck (BA) frame acknowledging the first TB PPDU and the second TB PPDU from the STA (Figure 6 at steps 612-624 – the receiving station receives first and second data packets (PPDUs) over different first and second bands and sends a block ack to the sending station).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Seok, as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Fellhauer.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Alpert and Seok discloses the limitations of Claim 10, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first uplink resource allocation and the second resource uplink allocation are associated with different time resources. In an analogous art, Fellhauer discloses this. Specifically, Fellhauer discloses a respective station (e.g., STA1) transmitting multiple uplink PPDUs in separate time slots to a station prior to receiving a BlockAck (Figure 7 and paragraph 0086). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert/Seok and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Alpert and Seok discloses the limitations of Claim 10, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA to transmit the first TB PPDU a first time spacing after receiving the trigger frame. In an analogous art, Fellhauer discloses this. Specifically, Fellhauer discloses the station transmitting a first uplink TB PPDU after a short inter-frame space (SIFS) following receipt of the trigger (Figure 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert/Seok and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Alpert, Seok and Fellhauer further discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA to transmit the second TB PPDU a second time spacing after transmitting the first TB PPDU (Fellhauer – a second TB PPDU is transmitted after a short inter-frame space (SIFS) following transmission of a first TB PPDU (Figure 7)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert/Seok and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Alpert, Seok and Fellhauer further discloses the second time spacing is less than or equal to a short interframe spacing (SIFS) (Fellhauer – a second TB PPDU is transmitted after a short inter-frame space (SIFS) following transmission of a first TB PPDU (Figure 7)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert/Seok and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Alpert and Seok discloses the limitations of Claim 10, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the trigger frame further includes a fourth indication associated with a third uplink resource allocation for a second STA. In an analogous art, Fellhauer discloses this. Specifically, Fellhauer discloses an AP sending a downlink Trigger with Schedule (TWS) for multiple stations in a network (Figure 7 and paragraph 0086; paragraph 0059 for description of how the TWS allocates uplink resources to respective stations). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alpert/Seok and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Alpert, Seok, and Fellhauer further discloses the third uplink resource allocation is associated with a same time resource as the first uplink resource allocation or the second uplink resource allocation (Fellhauer – as shown in Figure 7, multiple stations can transmit UL PPDUs in a respective time slot). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Alpert/Seok and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Alpert, Seok, and Fellhauer further discloses the third uplink resource allocation is associated with a same time resource as the first uplink resource allocation but with a different frequency resource or a different spatial resource than the first uplink resource allocation (Fellhauer – as shown in Figure 7 and further described in paragraph 0066, multiple stations can transmit UL PPDUs in a respective time slot on separate frequencies (i.e., via frequency hopping)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Alpert/Seok and Fellhauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce signaling overhead in the network (refer to paragraph 0006 of Fellhauer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0052353) discloses transmitting a blockack frame to a station after receiving a plurality of uplink multi-user frames from a plurality of stations (refer to Figure 11)
Venkatesan et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0381716) discloses an AP supporting mode and an unsolicited retransmission mode (paragraph 0039).
Lee (WIPO Publication 2024/025339) discloses an AP sending a blockack frame acknowledging one or more TB PPDUs from stations (refer to Figure 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472