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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 28 April 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14-19, the applicant argued, “…there appears to be no mention or hint in Jeon and Silverman about ‘wherein a throughput…equal to 4.’…” on pages 8-11.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In cols 3-4 and 6 and figures 1 and 3 Silverman clearly teaches wherein a throughput gain of implicit beamforming is greater than that of explicit beamforming with a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams being greater than 4 and a number of STA sounding dimensions being less than or equal to 4 (cols 3-4 and 6; figures 1 and 3: AP’s spatial streams N being greater than 4 and the number of STA uplink sounding dimension being 1 which is less than 4). The claim limitations merely states an advantageous effect of implicit beamforming over explicit beamforming when “a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams being greater than 4 and a number of STA sounding dimensions being less than or equal to 4”. Therefore, any reference teaching implicit beamforming with “a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams being greater than 4 and a number of STA sounding dimensions being less than or equal to 4” necessarily satisfies the advantageous effect. On the other hand, the claim limitation does not explicitly limit the claim to “a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams being greater than 4 and a number of STA sounding dimensions being less than or equal to 4”. It simply states that the throughput gain of implicit beamforming is greater than that of explicit beamforming “with a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams being greater than 4 and a number of STA sounding dimensions being less than or equal to 4” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, Silverman teaches implicit beamforming implementations with “1, 2, 3, … N spatial stream steering matrices/vectors”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the maximum number of spatial streams, N, is greater than or equal to 4. Additionally, in Silverman, a UE’s uplink spatial stream is a sounding dimension which is equal to 1 in one of the embodiments described in col 6.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14-19 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “a throughput gain of implicit beamforming is greater than that of explicit beamforming with a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams being greater than 4 and a number of STA sounding dimensions being less than or equal to 4”. It is unclear whether “a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams” is actually greater than 4 and whether “a number of STA sounding dimensions” is actually less than or equal to 4. The claim limitation recites the advantageous effect of implicit beamforming over explicit beamforming “with a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams being greater than 4 and a number of STA sounding dimensions being less than or equal to 4” (emphasis added). The limitation does not conclusively define the maximum number of AP spatial streams and number of STA sounding dimensions. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claims 4-9 and 14-19 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claims 1 and 11 respectively, as set forth above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. US 2022/0158696 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Jeon”) in view of Silverman et al. US 9,325,410 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Silverman”). NOTE: Jeon was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 19 September 2024.
As to claim 1, Jeon teaches a method, comprising:
triggering, by a processor of an apparatus as an access point (AP), each of one or more stations (STAs) to transmit a respective feedback (¶50; figures 3-5: BFRE trigger frame triggers STAs to transmit feedback);
estimating, by the processor, a respective steering matrix with respect to each of the one or more STAs based on the respective feedback (¶¶51 and 67; figures 3-5: estimate beam steering matrix based on the feedback); and
transmitting, by the processor, a respective steered data to each of the one or more STAs based on the respective steering matrix (¶¶67-68; figure 5: transmit respective PPDU including feedback frame to STA(s) according to the beamforming feedback matrix),
wherein the triggering comprises controlling a number of space-time streams (Nsts) and an uplink bandwidth (UL BW) of a respective trigger-based physical-layer protocol data unit (TB-PPDU) transmitted by each of the one or more STAs as the respective feedback (¶74; figure 6: TB-PPDU trigger frame includes fields indicating UL BW and Nsts controlled and transmitted by respective AP(s)), and
wherein the controlling of the number of Nsts and the UL BW of the respective TB-PPDU comprises indicating the number of Nsts and the UL BW in a user information field of a respective trigger frame transmitted to each of the one or more STAs (¶74; figure 6: Common Info, Special User Info, and User Info fields off the trigger frame set and uplink bandwidth, allocate an RU, and indicate SS Allocation/RA-RU Information (Nsts) (additionally see figure 13A for Special User Info including UL Bandwidth Extension)).
Although Jeon teaches “A method…respective steering matrix, wherein the triggering…or more STAs,” Jeon does not explicitly disclose “by applying…equal to 4”.
However, Silverman teaches transmitting, by the processor, a respective steered data to each of the one or more STAs based on the respective steering matrix by applying an implicit beamforming steering matrix responsive to a maximum number of spatial streams of the AP being greater than a number of sounding dimension of each of the one or more STAs (cols 2-3 and 6; figures 1 and 3: AP transmits downlink transmissions to stations according to steering matrix for beamforming according to implicit beamforming when the AP’s maximum number of spatial streams, N, is greater than the number of sounding dimensions for the stations’ uplink packets, e.g. 1), wherein a throughput gain of implicit beamforming is greater than that of explicit beamforming with a maximum number of the AP’s spatial streams being greater than 4 and a number of STA sounding dimensions being less than or equal to 4 (cols 3-4 and 6; figures 1 and 3: AP’s spatial streams N being greater than 4 and the number of STA uplink sounding dimension being 1 which is less than 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jeon by including “by applying…equal to 4” as taught by Silverman because it provides Jeon’s method with the enhanced capability of reducing airtime overhead (Silverman, cols 2-3 and 6; figures 1 and 3).
As to claim 4, Jeon in view of Silverman teaches the method of Claim 1. Jeon further teaches wherein the respective trigger frame comprises a basic trigger frame, a buffer status report poll (BSRP), a beamforming report poll (BFRP), a bandwidth query report poll (BQRP), or a null data packet (NDP) feedback report poll (NFRP) (¶¶50, 78-79, 85-86, and 92-93; figures 3, 7, 9, and 11).
As to claim 5, Jeon in view of Silverman teaches the method of Claim 1. Jeon further teaches wherein the estimating of the respective steering matrix comprises calculating a full characterization of a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) channel in which the respective feedback is transmitted based on the respective TB-PPDU (¶¶50-51, 67, 78-79, 85-86, and 92-93; figures 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11).
As to claim 6, Jeon in view of Silverman teaches the method of Claim 1. Jeon further teaches wherein the triggering of each of the one or more STAs comprises transmitting to each of the one or more STAs:
a null data packet announcement (NDPA);
a null data packet (NDP); and
a respective trigger frame (¶¶50, 78-79, 85-86, and 92-93; figures 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11).
As to claim 7, Jeon in view of Silverman teaches the method of Claim 6. Jeon further teaches wherein:
responsive to the one or more STAs comprising multiple STAs, the NDPA comprises a respective association identifier (AID) of each of the multiple STAs, and
responsive to the one or more STAs comprising a single STA, the NDPA comprises a first AID of the single STA and a second AID from one or more reserved AIDs (¶¶50, 75, 78-79, 85-86, and 92-93; figures 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11).
As to claim 8, Jeon in view of Silverman teaches the method of Claim 1. Jeon further teaches wherein a communication between the apparatus and the one or more STAs involves either a single-link operation (SLO) or a multi-link operation (MLO) (¶¶50-51, 67, 78-79, 85-86, and 92-93; figures 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11).
As to claim 9, Jeon in view of Silverman teaches the method of Claim 1. Jeon further teaches wherein the one or more STAs comprise one or more STAs compliant with Wi-Fi 6, Wi-Fi 7, Wi-Fi 8, or another Wi-Fi standard based on an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 specification beyond Wi-Fi 8 (¶37).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights