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 filed on 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the applicant argues that Liu and Sugaya fail to disclose the feature: “…received in a plurality of resource units.” Particularly, the applicant argues that Liu describes an “extended PPDU” that is temporally segmented into multiple subframes… In all of these subframes, Liu uses the entire channel bandwidth; the subframes are simply time segments of one long PPDU. The applicant continues that: “By contrast, as used in the present application, a “resource unit” (RU) is a time/frequency allocation within an OFDMA PPDU. The specification, describes, for example, “blank time/frequency resources” and “no-power resource units…” (see page 2 of the remark).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “resource unit” (RU) is a time/frequency allocation, blank time/frequency resources” and/or “no-power resource units) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the extended PPDU 420 is transmitted/received in a plurality of subframes or resource units.
The applicant also argues that Liu fails to disclose the feature: “…wherein no signal is received during the one or more midambles;” The applicant argues that the midambles in Liu teaches that “no data is received during the midambles” improperly conflates “no data” with “no signal” and is inconsistent with Liu’s disclosure. Particularly, the applicant argues that Liu expressly teaches that its midambles are duplicate/shortened PHY preambles used to provide training for channel estimation updates and include a signal field with duration-related information; as a result, the receiver necessarily receives transmitted PHY content during the midambles. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and will further explain the rejection.
Liu discloses its midambles which are used to provide training for channel estimation updates and include a signal field with duration-related information. In other words, the midambles are used for providing (e.g., transmitting) training…, In contrast, the current claim language merely recites “no signal is received during the one or more midambles.”. Therefore, Liu discloses its midambles, wherein no signal/data is received at the station, where data is broadly interpreted as signal.
Further, the applicant argues that Sugaya fails to disclose the feature: “monitoring, during the one or more midambles, for transmissions from one or more STAs in an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) to estimate a probability.” Particularly, Sugaya fails to disclose the monitoring during the midambles of the PPDU that the STA is receiving from its AP, nor does it teach using such monitoring to estimate a probability of collision. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and will further explain the rejection.
In the current ground of rejection, Liu discloses a STA for receiving PPDU from an access point (AP), wherein the PPDU is received in a plurality of resource units, and the PPDU includes a preamble and one or more midambles, wherein no signal is received during the one or more midambles (Liu see fig. 9a, PPDU 420; preamble 424, midamble 440; fig. 13, steps 582, 584; para. 0132, 0133, 0158). Liu is missing the feature of: “monitoring, during the one or more midambles, for transmissions from one or more STAs in an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) to estimate a probability of a collision”.
Sugaya from the same or similar fields of endeavor is introduced to teach the feature (e.g., concept) of the monitoring step.
The Examiner would like to draw the applicant’s attention to fig. 17, midambles (MD11 & MD12); para. 0237, 0238, 0240; fig. 19, OBSS1; para. 0256, 0260-0263 of Sugaya.
In para. 0256, which states: “…Further, at this time, the wireless communication apparatus STA0 has successfully received also a midamble MD21 of the transmission frame FL42.”;
In para. 0261, which states: “... the wireless communication apparatus STA0 can acquire BSS Color information, transmission power control level information and so forth on the basis of the midamble MD21 or the preamble PR11 received (detected) in advance…”; and
In para. 0262, which states: “Therefore, the wireless communication apparatus STA0 transmits the ACK frame FL47 with transmission power of such a level that no collision occurs with the transmission frame FL46 on the basis of reception power of the actually received transmission frame FL46 of the OBSS 2 and so forth. In short, the transmission power for the ACK frame FL47 is set such that the ACK frame FL47 may not have an influence on communication in the OBSS 2.”
In other words, Sugaya discloses the STA0 for receiving midamble MD21, monitoring, during the midamble, for transmission from OBSS (e.g., OBSS 2) to estimate for collision probability such that ACK frame FL47 is transmitted at a power level to avoid collision/interference with OBSS communications (e.g., OBSS2 AP2 and/or OBSS2 STA2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu and to implement with the feature (e.g., concept) of monitoring, during the one or more midambles of Liu, for transmissions from the OBSS communications (e.g., OBSS STA or OBSS AP) to estimate collision probability and consequently adjust OBSS transmission power level to reduce or avoid collision.
The motivation would be to reduce transmission error rate.
Additionally, the applicant argues that claim 10 ties the monitoring function to the context where the STA is receiving a PPDU from its AP and the PPDU includes midambles during which no signal is received… The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Liu already discloses the feature wherein the STA receives the PPDU from its AP and the PPDU includes midambles during which no signal is received (Liu see fig. 9a, PPDU 420; preamble 424, midamble 440; fig. 13, steps 582, 584; para. 0132, 0133, 0158).
Further, the applicant argues that Sugaya’s described operation is materially different in that the station detects and decodes midambles embedded within other frames in the medium in order to extract information such as BSS color and support spatial reuse decisions. That is not the same as a STA, while receiving its own PPDU, using intentionally blank midamble intervals of that PPDU to monitor for OBSS STA transmissions. Additionally, the applicant argues that Sugaya’s midambles are signal-bearing fields used to convey information mid-frame, not silent windows dedicated to sensing other transmissions… and does not disclose estimating a collision probability metric.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 1. while receiving its own PPDU, using intentionally blank midamble intervals of that PPDU to monitor for OBSS STA transmissions; 2. One or more midambles are silent windows… 3. estimating a collision probability metric) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Sugaya’s BSS color and/or OBSS-related information such as transmission power control level information is used to determine the OBSS collision probability and to reduce OBSS transmission collision (Sugaya see para. 0261-0263).
Furthermore, the applicant argues that even apart from these missing claim elements, the Office Action does not provide a sufficient articulated reason with supporting rational to modify Liu with Sugaya in the specific manner needed to arrive at claim 10…, the examiner respectfully disagrees and provides the further explanation (see section 4) of modifying disclosure of Liu and to implement the feature or the concept of monitoring as taught by Sugaya to arrive the claimed invention of claims 1 and 10.
In conclusion, the Examiner suggests the applicant to further amend the claim to expedite case prosecution.
Examiner's Note
The Applicant is welcome to request a telephonic interview if the Applicant has any questions or requires any additional information that would further or expedite the prosecution of the application.
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 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.
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, 5, 10, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub No.: 2012/0314696) in view of Sugaya et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0178120).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses a station (STA) (see client 25-4 in fig. 1) comprising:
a transceiver (see Tx/Rx 30 in fig. 1); and
a processor (see Host processor 26 in fig. 1),
wherein the transceiver and processor are configured to:
receive, from an access point (AP), a physical protocol data unit (PPDU), wherein the PPDU is received in a plurality of resource units, and the PPDU includes a preamble and one or more midambles, wherein no signal is received during the one or more midambles (Liu see fig. 9a, PPDU 420; preamble 424, midamble 440; fig. 13, steps 582, 584; para. 0132, 0133, 0158, At block 582, PPDUs are generated to include the MPDUs. Each PPDU has a duration less than or equal to the maximum PPDU duration. At block 584, the PPDUs are transmitted). The PPDU is transmitted/received by a client station 25-4 or an access point, wherein the PPDU is transmitted in a plurality of resource units (e.g., subframes). The PPDU includes preamble 424, midambles 440, wherein no data is received during the midambles.
However, Liu does not explicitly disclose the feature to monitor, during the one or more midambles, for transmissions from one or more STAs in an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) to estimate a probability of a collision.
Sugaya et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature to monitor, during the one or more midambles, for transmissions from one or more STAs (see STA3 in fig. 17) in an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) to estimate a probability of a collision (Sugaya et al. see fig. 17, midambles (MD11 & MD12); para. 0237, 0238, 0240; In para. 0237, …Especially, in this example, a portion indicated by character “M” inserted in the middle of the transmission frame FL21 and the transmission frame FL22 represents a midamble; In para. 0238, …the wireless communication apparatus STA0 performs carrier detection in the middle of the frames; In para. 0240, … the wireless communication apparatus STA0 has failed to decode the preamble part of the transmission frame FL22, since the wireless communication apparatus STA0 has successfully decoded the portion of the midamble MD12 in the middle of the frame, it can acquire BSS Color information from the midamble MD12.). The STA0 monitors in the middle (e.g., midamble MD11) of the FL21 and FL22 frames to perform carrier detection and to obtain BSS color information from the midambles MD11 & MD12. The BSS color information distinguishes whether the transmission frame (e.g., FL22) is a signal of the OBSS in order to estimate a probability of interference/collision of transmissions between BSS frame (FL21) and OBSS frame (FL22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu and to implement with the feature as taught by Sugaya et al. to monitor during a midamble from one or more STAs in an OBSS to estimate a probability of a collision.
The motivation would be to reduce transmission error rate.
Claim 1 is rejected similarly to claim 10.
Regarding claims 4, 13, Sugaya et al. discloses the feature wherein the one or more midambles are collision estimation midambles (Sugaya et al. see fig. 17, midambles (MD11 & MD12); para. 0237, 0238, 0240; In para. 0237, …Especially, in this example, a portion indicated by character “M” inserted in the middle of the transmission frame FL21 and the transmission frame FL22 represents a midamble; In para. 0238, …the wireless communication apparatus STA0 performs carrier detection in the middle of the frames). Thus, the Midambles are used to detect collision estimation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu and to implement with the feature as taught by Sugaya et al. where the midamble(s) is collision estimation midamble(s).
The motivation would be to reduce transmission error rate.
Regarding claims 5, 14, Liu discloses the feature wherein the one or more midambles are located at static intervals within the PPDU (Liu see fig. 9a, preamble 424, midamble 440a-b; para. 0132). The mid-amble 440a-b are located at fixed/static intervals within the PPDU.
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub No.: 2012/0314696) in view of Sugaya et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0178120) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0163118).
Regarding claims 2, 11, Liu in view of Sugaya et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein the estimation of the probability of a collision is based on an estimated signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a received transmission from one or more STAs in an OBSS.
Huang et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein the estimation of the probability of a collision is based on an estimated signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a received transmission from one or more STAs in an OBSS (Huang et al. see para. 0031; Various implementations relate generally to techniques for collision detection. Particular implementations more specifically relate to techniques for dynamically changing a threshold value used for distinguishing a collision from other network conditions such as poor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).). Thus, the collision is determined based on SNR.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu in view of Sugaya et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Huang et al. wherein the collision is determined based on SNR.
The motivation would be to provide transmission reliability.
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub No.: 2012/0314696) in view of Sugaya et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0178120) and Huang et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0163118) as applied to claim 2 or 11 above, and further in view of Kar Kin Au et al. (Pub No.: 2014/0254544).
Regarding claims 3, 12, Liu in view of Sugaya et al. and Huang et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature for determining the estimated probability of collision is above a threshold; and performing a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) procedure.
Kar Kin Au et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature determining the estimated probability of collision is above a threshold; and performing a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) procedure (Kar Kin Au et al. see para. 0050; if UE 104 determines collision has occurred, UE 104 then determines if the number of collisions exceed a certain threshold. If not, then UE 104 returns to step 814 and resolves the collision using an asynchronous HARQ method.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu in view of Sugaya et al. and Huang et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Kar Kin Au et al. for performing HARQ when the collision is above a threshold.
The motivation would be to provide transmission reliability.
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub No.: 2012/0314696) in view of Sugaya et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0178120) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Noh et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0228634).
Regarding claims 6, 15, Liu in view of Sugaya et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein a location of the one or more midambles within the PPDU is dynamic.
Noh et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein a location of the one or more midambles within the PPDU is dynamic (Noh et al. see fig. 18, para. 0233; mid-amble 1826 is optionally located in the PPDU). Thus, the location of the mid-amble 1826 is dynamic and can be changed or optional.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu in view of Sugaya et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Noh et al. to include optional midambles.
The motivation would be to provide transmission flexibility.
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub No.: 2012/0314696) in view of Sugaya et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0178120) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (Pub No.: 2019/0173710).
Regarding claims 7, 16, Liu in view of Sugaya et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein the preamble indicates a presence of the one or more midambles.
Cao et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein the preamble indicates a presence of the one or more midambles (Cao et al. see para. 0099; In an embodiment wherein the PHY preamble 904 corresponds to the PHY preamble 304/404, the HI-SIG 320/HT-SIG 416 includes one or more fields that indicate a presence of the PHY midambles 920).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu in view of Sugaya et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Cao et al. where the preamble indicates presence of midambles.
The motivation would be to improve transmission efficiency.
Claim(s) 8,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub No.: 2012/0314696) in view of Sugaya et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0178120) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (Pat No.: 8,665,906) (‘906).
Regarding claims 8, 17, Liu in view of Sugaya et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein the preamble indicates a location of the one or more midambles within the PPDU.
Liu et al. ‘906 from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein the preamble indicates a location of the one or more midambles within the PPDU (Liu et al. ‘906 see column 24, lines 48-52; In one embodiment, the expected location of the first midamble is determined based on information in the preamble of the aggregated PHY data unit..).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu in view of Sugaya et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Liu et al. ‘906 where the preamble indicates location of midambles.
The motivation would be to improve transmission efficiency.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Pub No.: 2012/0314696) in view of Sugaya et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0178120) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (Pub No.: 2019/0097857).
Regarding claims 9, 18, Liu in view of Sugaya et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein the preamble indicates an update interval of the one or more midambles within the PPDU.
Zhang et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein the preamble indicates an update interval of the one or more midambles within the PPDU (Zhang et al. see abstract, 0048; the PHY preamble includes i) an indication of a length of the PPDU, and ii) an indication of a periodicity of PHY midambles in the PHY data portion). The PHY preamble includes update of a periodicity/interval of PHY midambles.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Liu in view of Sugaya et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Zhang et al. where the preamble indicates update interval of midambles.
The motivation would be to improve transmission efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu et al. (Pub No.: 2019/0364525) discloses embodiments of the present invention disclose a data processing method and apparatus, and belong to the field of communications technologies. The method includes: generating a physical layer protocol data unit PPDU, where the PPDU includes a preamble field, a data field, and a middle preamble field, and the preamble in the PPDU includes information used to indicate an insertion frequency of the middle preamble in the data field in the PPDU; and sending the PPDU. The insertion frequency of the middle preamble in the data field is indicated by using a specified field in the preamble. In this way, in different scenarios, the middle preamble may be inserted into the data field at different frequency, thereby reducing overheads of an inserted pilot and improving data transmission performance.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAN YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am-7pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/KAN YUEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights