DETAILED ACTION
The following communication is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed November 26, 2025.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 have been canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0190535 (Newly Cited, hereinafter “Hassan”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0087300 (Newly Cited, hereinafter “Seok”).
Hassan discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 1 and 11, a method for use in a station (STA), the method and the STA comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit, to an access point (AP) (see at least paragraph 71, a device transmits a request for a subcarrier assignment, which is received at an access point)
a receiver configured to receive, from the AP, a probe response frame including a second indication that the AP is operating using a first channel and a second channel, wherein the first channel and the second channel are non-contiguous channels, information identifying the first channel, and information identifying the second channel (see at least paragraphs 51, 52, 59-63, 67-71, 78-79, and 94-95, the device receives a beacon including subcarrier assignment, which includes non-contiguous subcarriers, as shown in Fig. 5B, where the subcarrier assignment includes a list of subcarriers in the assignment to the device, as shown in Figs. 3C and 3D, and the information elements may be inserted into a probe response message, where a channel and a subcarrier are described as spanning a frequency range and, therefore, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation, a subcarrier can be interpreted as a channel);
wherein the receiver is further configured to receive user data from the AP using the first channel and the second channel (see at least paragraph 79, the access point may communicate with the device using the assigned subcarriers).
Hassan also discloses that the access point receives a request for a subcarrier assignment in a probe message (see at least paragraph 71) but Hassan does not explicitly disclose the probe request frame including a first indication that the STA supports non-contiguous channel operation.
However, in an analogous art, Seok discloses or suggests a request frame including a first indication that the STA supports non-contiguous channel operation (see at least paragraphs 36, 46, STAs can report to the AP that they support C-DLS by setting a C-DLS capability bit to ‘1’, where C-DLS supports using an 80 MHz consisting of two channels non-contiguous to each other).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a non-contiguous channel capability indication, as taught by Seok, in the probe request message of Hassan in order to optimize the bandwidth usage by indicating the capability of non-contiguous channel capability.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Hassan discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except transmitting an indication of whether the STA supports an 80 MHz channel bandwidth.
However, in an analogous art, Seok discloses or suggests transmitting an indication of whether the STA supports an 80 MHz channel bandwidth (see at least paragraphs 36, 46, STAs can report to the AP that they support C-DLS by setting a C-DLS capability bit to ‘1’, where C-DLS supports using an 80 MHz consisting of two channels non-contiguous to each other).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a non-contiguous channel capability indication, as taught by Seok, in the probe request message of Hassan in order to optimize the bandwidth usage by indicating the capability of non-contiguous channel capability.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Hassan discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except that each of the non-contiguous channels is formed from a group of contiguous channels.
However, in an analogous art, Seok discloses or suggests that each of the non-contiguous channels is formed from a group of contiguous channels (see at least paragraph 36, 80 MHz channel consisting of two channels non-contiguous to each other, where the 80 MHz channel consists of a first contiguous channel having a channel bandwidth of 40 MHz and a second contiguous channel having a channel bandwidth of 40 MHz).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a non-contiguous channel capability indication, as taught by Seok, in the probe request message of Hassan in order to optimize the bandwidth usage.
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in view of Seok, and further in view of U.S. Patent Number 9,137,341 (hereinafter “Bagchi”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Hassan, as modified by Seok, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except the transmitter configured to transmit an indication of whether the STA supports a short guard interval (GI) for reception of frames, and an indication of whether the STA supports a power save mode.
However, Bagchi, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests an indication of whether the STA supports a short guard interval (GI) for reception of frames, and an indication of whether the STA supports a power save mode (see at least Table 2, guard interval indicating short guard interval and power indicating power index to select transmit power setting, which indicates a power save mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the transmit parameters as taught by Bagchi in to the invention of Hassan, as modified by Seok, in order to improve the performance of data transmission.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Hassan, as modified by Seok, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except receiving power control information.
However, Bagchi, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests receiving power control information (see at least Table 2, power index to select transmit power setting).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the transmit parameters as taught by Bagchi in to the invention of Hassan, as modified by Seok, in order to improve the performance of data transmission.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in view of Seok, and further in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,650,649 (hereinafter “Muhammad”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Hassan, as modified by Seok, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except transmitting an indication of whether the STA supports frequency reuse.
However, Muhammad, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests frequency reuse capabilities for multiple frequency channels (see at least column 12 lines 14-19).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Muhammad in to the invention of Hassan, as modified by Seok, in order to optimize the usage of the frequency channels.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in view of Seok, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0199968 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Hassan, as modified by Seok, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except transmitting an indication of whether the STA supports multi-user multiple input multiple output (MU-MIMO) beamforming.
However, Kim, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests STA support for multi-user multiple input multiple output (MU-MIMO) beamforming (see at least paragraphs 117-120, MU-MIMO/OFDMA beamforming capabilities).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Kim in to the invention of Hassan, as modified by Seok, in order to optimize the usage of the frequency channels.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in view of Seok, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0298742 (hereinafter “Ketchum”).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 18-20, Hassan, as modified by Seok, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except transmitting an indication of whether the STA supports link adaptation, where the first indication that the STA supports non-contiguous channel operation is included in an association request frame, wherein the second indication that the AP is operating using a first channel and a second channel, wherein the first channel and the second channel are non-contiguous channels, is included in an association response frame.
However, Ketchum, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests transmitting an indication of whether the STA supports link adaptation (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph 54, link adaption control field), where the first indication that the STA supports non-contiguous channel operation is included in an association request frame (see at least paragraph 63, association request), wherein the second indication that the AP is operating using a first channel and a second channel, wherein the first channel and the second channel are non-contiguous channels, is included in an association response frame (see at least paragraph 63, association response).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the transmit parameters as taught by Ketchum in to the invention of Hassan, as modified by Seok, in order to support high throughput data transmission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 03/09/2026