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 Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 2 June 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the disclosure of a single trigger frame in Nakano et al, as described herein. It is noted, however, that the Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the claim limitation “a third indication indicating whether an aggregated acknowledgment mode is enabled” (see page 6 of the response). The indication is solely claimed in terms of what it indicates, and is not further limited as to its content, format, or structure. Therefore, the Office submits that Alpert’s disclosure (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) reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as drafted, absent further limitation of the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0184233), hereinafter Alpert, in view of Nakano et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0098758).
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 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 a 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).
However, Alpert does not disclose a trigger frame soliciting one or more trigger-based (TB) physical protocol data unit (PPDU) from a first station (STA). In an analogous art, Nakano discloses this. Specifically, Nakano discloses a MAP trigger frame comprising a plurality of resource allocations (on a per station basis) and a BA sharing flag indicating whether a Block ACK is to be shared (i.e., is enabled) (paragraphs 0217-0220 and Figure 30). 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 Nakano. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce overhead traffic in a wireless LAN.
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).
Claims 2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Nakano, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Fellhauer et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0334817), hereinafter Fellhauer.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Alpert and Nakano discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do 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 / Nakano 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, the combination of Alpert and Nakano discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do 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/Nakano 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, Nakano 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/Nakano 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, Nakano 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/Nakano 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, Nakano 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/Nakano 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Nakano, as applied to 1 above, and further in view of Seok (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0334817).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Alpert and Nakano 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, the aforementioned references do 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/Nakano 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).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Nakano and 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 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 (a) 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 a trigger frame soliciting one or more trigger-based (TB) physical protocol data unit (PPDU) from a first station (STA). In an analogous art, Nakano discloses this. Specifically, Nakano discloses a MAP trigger frame comprising a plurality of resource allocations (on a per station basis) and a BA sharing flag indicating whether a Block ACK is to be shared (i.e., is enabled) (paragraphs 0217-0220 and Figure 30). 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 Nakano. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce overhead traffic in a wireless LAN.
However, Alpert and Nakano do 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/Nakano 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 Nakano and Seok, as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Fellhauer.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Alpert, Nakano 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/Nakano/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, Nakano 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/Nakano/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, Nakano, 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/Nakano/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, Nakano, 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/Nakano/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, Nakano 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/Nakano/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, Nakano, 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/Nakano/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, Nakano, 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/Nakano/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
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
Prosecution Insights