DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 12/29/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on: 01/10/2025, 01/27/2025, and 03/03/2026, are determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS’ are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, each claim indicated above recites the indefinite claim term “and/or” within the body of the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner if this term is intended to be equivalent to the term “and,” or alternatively to the term “or,” which have substantially different claim scope and meaning. Therefore, Applicant is required to amend each of dependent claims 7 and 16 to respectively recite either one of the terms: “and” or “or,” but not both (in the alternative), to facilitate proper understanding of the intended claim scope, and to cure the instant §112(b) indefiniteness claim rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2024/0172191 A1, Chun et al. (hereinafter “Chun”).
With respect to claim 1, Chun teaches:
A resource allocation method, comprising:
determining a band indication and a resource unit allocation indication based on at least one of a resource unit (RU) or a multi-resource unit (MRU) allocated to a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (paras. [0008]-[0009], [0118]-[0122] and [0187]-[0189]; Tables 1-2 and Figs. 12 and 14 —an RU/MRU resource allocation can be received in a trigger-based PPDU, from which a band indication (associated with B0 of a resource allocation subfield), and RU allocation indication (associated with B7-B1 of a RU allocation subfield), as depicted in Table1, can be determined based on resource allocation trigger-frame table correspondence),
wherein
the band indication indicates an index of a band of the at least one of the RU or the MRU, and an index range of the band indication is based on an index range corresponding to a band indication in a first bandwidth (paras. [0187]-[0189]; and Tables 1-2 —the B0, i.e., 0/1, band indication of the resource allocation subfield can indicate a correspondence to a RU/MRU index of a band thereof, as depicted in Table 1 —an index range, i.e., MRU1-MRU3 may correspond to a bandwidth segment, i.e., of 80MHz, where an RU is located, of a first bandwidth, i.e., a 160MHz/320MHz BW, as depicted in Tables 1-2);
the resource unit allocation indication indicates an RU/MRU index of the at least one of the RU or the MRU on the band, and an index range of the resource unit allocation indication is based on an index range corresponding to a resource unit allocation indication in the first bandwidth (paras. [0187]-[0189]; and Tables 1-2 —as depicted in Table 1, the RU/MRU index of an MRU on a bandwidth segment, i.e., 80MHz, and an index range, i.e., MRU1-MRU3, of the MRU can be based on a first bandwidth, i.e., a 160MHz/320MHz BW, as depicted in Tables 1-2); and
the first bandwidth is greater than a bandwidth of the PPDU (paras. [0187]-[0189]; and Tables 1-2 —the first bandwidth can be 160/320MHz and the bandwidth segment of a PPDU where a RU/MRU is located can be 80/160MHz, as depicted in Table 1); and
sending the band indication and the resource unit allocation indication (paras. [0187]-[0189] and [0207]-[0209] —a BS/AP-STA can send to a STA corresponding trigger information, with band and RU/MRU allocation indication information, as depicted in Table 1).
With respect to claim 2, Chun teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first bandwidth is 320 MHz (paras. [0111] and [0189]; and Tables 1-2 —a first BW may be set at 320MHz).
With respect to claim 3, Chun teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first bandwidth is 160 MHz (paras. [0111] and [0188]; and Tables 1-2 —a first BW may be set at 160MHz).
With respect to claim 6, Chun teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the band indication is based on a primary-secondary 160 (PS 160) subfield and a bit BO of a resource unit allocation subfield in a trigger frame (paras. [0187]-[0189] —an 80 MHz band segment where the PPDU RU is located can be based on the PS160 and B0 RU allocation subfields of a trigger frame, as depicted in Table 1); and
the resource unit allocation indication is based on bits B7-B1 of the resource unit allocation subfield (paras. [0187]-[0189] —a PPDU RU allocation indication can be based on the B7-B1 of the RU allocation subfield of Table 1).
With respect to claim 7, Chun teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein
when the RU is a 26-tone RU, a 52-tone RU, a 106-tone RU, a 242-tone RU, a 484-tone RU, or a 996-tone RU, or the MRU is a 52+26-tone MRU, a 106+26-tone MRU, or a 484+242-tone MRU, the PS 160 subfield and BO indicate which 80 MHz the RU/MRU is in; and/or
when the RU is a 2x996-tone RU, or the MRU is a 996+484-tone MRU or a 996+484+242- tone MRU, the PS 160 subfield indicates which 160 MHz the RU/MRU is in (See row 1 of Table 1 —when the RU size is 26-tone, the PS160 subfield and B0 of the RU allocation subfield indicate 0-3: 80MHz that the RU is in —the Examiner notes that Table 1 of Chun tracks Applicant’s Table 2; thus, other claimed M/RU mappings also correspond between the two tables —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a singled claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 10, Chun teaches:
A resource allocation method, comprising:
receiving a band indication and a resource unit allocation indication (paras. [0008]-[0009], [0118]-[0122] and [0187]-[0189]; Tables 1-2 and Figs. 12 and 14 —an RU/MRU resource allocation can be received in a trigger-based PPDU, from which a band indication (associated with B0 of a resource allocation subfield), and RU allocation indication (associated with B7-B1 of a RU allocation subfield), as depicted in Table1, can be determined based on resource allocation trigger-frame table correspondence), wherein
the band indication indicates an index of a band of at least one of a resource unit (RU) or a multi-resource unit (MRU), and an index range of the band indication is based on an index range corresponding to a band indication in a first bandwidth (paras. [0187]-[0189]; and Tables 1-2 —the B0, i.e., 0/1, band indication of the resource allocation subfield can indicate a correspondence to a RU/MRU index of a band thereof, as depicted in Table 1 —an index range, i.e., MRU1-MRU3 may correspond to a bandwidth segment, i.e., of 80MHz, where an RU is located, of a first bandwidth, i.e., a 160MHz/320MHz BW, as depicted in Tables 1-2);
and
the resource unit allocation indication indicates an RU/MRU index of the at least one of the RU or the MRU on the band, and an index range of the resource unit allocation indication is based on an index range corresponding to a resource unit allocation indication in the first bandwidth (paras. [0187]-[0189]; and Tables 1-2 —as depicted in Table 1, the RU/MRU index of an MRU on a bandwidth segment, i.e., 80MHz, and an index range, i.e., MRU1-MRU3, of the MRU can be based on a first bandwidth, i.e., a 160MHz/320MHz BW, as depicted in Tables 1-2); and
determining the band corresponding to the index indicated by the band indication (paras. [0121], [0187]-[0189], and [0208]-[0210]; and Table 1 —a STA can determine a band segment corresponding to the RU/MRU index received from a trigger frame transmission, as depicted in Table 1), and
determining the at least one of the RU or the MRU corresponding to the RU/MRU index indicated by the resource unit allocation indication on the band (paras. [0121], [0187]-[0189], and [0208]-[0210]; and Table 1 —a STA can determine a RU/MRU corresponding to an RU/MRU index received from a trigger frame transmission RU allocation indication on the corresponding band segment, i.e., RU allocation subfield depicted in Table 1).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Chun, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Chun, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Chun, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Chun, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 19 is directed to a communication apparatus comprising an interface and a processor that communicatively coupled (paras. [0036]-[0047]; first/second device 100/200 with coupled transceiver(s) 106/206 and processor(s) 102/202 of Fig. 1). As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Chun, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
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 4-5, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of 2023/0016370 A1, Kim et al., (hereinafter “Kim”).
With Respect to Claim 4, Chun teaches the method according to claim 2.
However, Chun does not explicitly teach:
the PPDU being an aggregated PPDU (A-PPDU).
Kim does teach:
a PPDU being an A-PPDU (paras. [0020], [0417], [0449], and [0464] —PPDU segments of different formats, i.e., EHT or HE, may be transmitting within a same A-PPDU).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chun’s PPDU(s) with different formats to be an A-PPDU, as taught by Kim.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate aggregation of different PPDU formats, i.e., for EHT PPDU and HE PPDUs, within a single A-PPDU, as recognized by Kim (paras. [0020], [0417], [0449], and [0464]).
With Respect to Claim 5, Chun teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Chun does not explicitly teach:
wherein the PPDU is an A-PPDU that has a corresponding bandwidth indication, and the first bandwidth is a bandwidth of the A-PPDU.
Kim does teach:
wherein the PPDU is an A-PPDU that has a corresponding bandwidth indication, and a first bandwidth is a bandwidth of the A-PPDU (paras. [0417], [0439], [0449], and [0464] —PPDU segments of different formats, i.e., EHT or HE, may be transmitted within a same A-PPDU, such that a first, total A-PPDU BW is 160MHz having two PPDU segments with 80MHz BW each).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chun’s PPDU(s) with different formats to be an A-PPDU with corresponding bandwidth segment and total bandwidth indication, as taught by Kim.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate aggregation of different PPDU formats, i.e., for EHT PPDU and HE PPDUs, within a single A-PPDU, as recognized by Kim (paras. [0417], [0439], [0449], and [0464]).
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chun in view of Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chun in view of Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chun in view of Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of 2024/0396700 A1, Park et al., (hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claim 8, Chun teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Chun does not explicitly teach:
wherein when the bandwidth of the PPDU is 20 MHz and the resource unit is a 242-tone RU, the 242-tone RU is a non-orthogonal frequency division multiple access non-OFDMA 242-tone RU.
Park does teach:
wherein when the bandwidth of the PPDU is 20 MHz and the resource unit is a 242-tone RU, the 242-tone RU is a non-orthogonal frequency division multiple access non-OFDMA 242-tone RU (paras: [0461]-[0462] and [0492] —a PPDU can be transmitted in a non-OFDMA scheme via a 20MHz subchannel that includes a 242-tone size RU, thus making the RU a non-OFDMA 242-tone RU).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chun’s PPDU transmission solution with defining 20MHz subchannels having 242-tone RUs to be non-OFDMA, as taught by Park.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate non-OFDMA characteristics to 20MHz subchannels having 242-tone RUs, as recognized by Park (paras: [0461]-[0462] and [0492]).
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chun in view of Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of 2022/0116921 A1, Lim et al., (hereinafter “Lim”).
With respect to claim 9, Chun teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Chun does not explicitly teach:
wherein when the bandwidth of the PPDU is 80 MHz, 160 MHz, or 320 MHz, each 20MHz supports one or more 52+26-tone MRUs and one or more 106+26-tone MRUs.
Lim does teach:
when a bandwidth of a PPDU is 80 MHz, 160 MHz, or 320 MHz, each 20MHz supports one or more 52+26-tone MRUs and one or more 106+26-tone MRUs (paras. [0078]-[0082], [0099]-[0100], [0202]-[0203], and [0291]; Tables 2 and 5-7, and Fig. 4 —in a 20MHz subband both a 106+26 tone M/RU and 52+26 tone M/RU can be included—the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a singled claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chun’s PPDU transmission solution with defining BW subchannels of 20MHz to having both a 52+26-tone MRU(s) and a 106+26-tone MRU(s), as taught by Lim.
The motivation for doing so would have been to diversify MRU allocation to have varying tones/sizes within a single 20MHz subchannel, as recognized by Lim (paras. [0078]-[0082], [0099]-[0100], [0202]-[0203], and [0291]; Tables 2 and 5-7, and Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 9. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chun in view of Lim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US Patent No. 12,382,370 B2, Park et al.: teaches solutions related to configuring an aggregated PPDU supporting both HE and EHT WLAN data transmissions.
US PG Pub 2022/0353125 A1, Park et al.: teaches trigger frame communications for A-PPDU transmissions including multiple-STA EHT communications.
US PG Pub 2021/0258115 A1, Liu et al.: teaches EHT preamble design transmission solutions for communications with mixed STA clients.
US Patent No. 11,611,992 B2, Lu et al.: teaches bandwidth extension indication/negotiation solutions for multi-STA communications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418