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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 12/5/2025 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 10 (pages 5-7) in a reply filed 12/5/2025 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 7-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2015/0244432 A1, hereinafter Wang) in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0131421 A1, hereinafter Chen), claiming benefit to and fully-supported by US provisional applications 62/417,719 filed Nov. 4, 2016, further in view of Maltsev et al. (“Enhanced SLS BF flow for efficient AP-STA access in dense environment”, IEEE 802.11-17/xxxx (802.11-17/0067r1, January 2017, hereinafter Maltsev).
Regarding claim 1:
Wang teaches a communication device (see, Wang: Fig. 2 and para. [0042], wireless device 201) comprising:
a processor (see, Wang: Fig. 2 and para. [0042], processor 203); and
a transceiver (see, Wang: Fig. 2 and para. [0042], a plurality of transceivers 211-214), wherein
the processor and the transceiver are configured to monitor for one or more frames in a plurality of beamforming sectors during a time interval (i.e., BTI duration) (see, Wang: para. [0040], “During RX sector sweeping, training packets are transmitted from initiator 101 to responder 102, which sweeps through the RX sectors, each sector corresponds to a specific RX antenna beam/pattern (e.g., direction/weight). In step 112, responder 102 records the received signal quality (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)) and determines a number of beam combinations (selected TX and RX sector pairs) based on the results of TX sector sweep and RX sector sweep.”, wherein the wireless 102 (e.g., a responder) is configured to monitor training packets (i.e., one or more frames) through the RX sectors during beacon transmission interval (BTI). Also, see para. [0064].);
the processor and the transceiver are configured to receive at least one frame in at least one of the plurality of beamforming sectors during the time interval (see, Wang: Fig. 10 and para. [0064], “During the initiator I-TXSS, the initiator first transmits DMG beacon frames during beacon transmission interval (BTI).”, wherein the wireless device (e.g., a responder) receives DMG beacon frames through the RX sectors during beacon transmission interval (BTI).).
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the processor and the transceiver are configured to transmit a response frame using beamforming parameters based on one of the plurality of beamforming sectors in which the at least one frame is received, wherein the response frame is transmitted during a subsequent time interval and within a time slot associated with the one of the plurality of beamforming sectors.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein the processor and the transceiver (see, Chen: Fig. 5, support is found in Fig. 5 of 62/417,719.) are configured to transmit a response frame (e.g., SSW, short SSW etc.) using beamforming parameters based on one of the plurality of beamforming sectors in which the at least one frame is received (see, Chen: para. [0058], “The responder STAs 222, 224, 226, and 228 may perform a responder transmit sector sweep (R-TXSS) by sweeping their RX sectors and send responses (e.g., responses 219, 221, 223, and 225) to the AP/PCP.”), wherein the response frame is transmitted during a subsequent time interval (e.g., during DTI) (see, Chen: Fig. 2 and para. [0059], “In the DTI, an EDMG responder STA may decide to access the directional allocation (CBAP or SP) with the RX sector of AP/PCP corresponding to the sector identified in the BTI interval and may transmit one SSW (or a short SSW) frame in this sector. For example, the responder STA 222 may send an SSW frame in direction 211, which had been determined during BTI to be the direction of the operating sector. The responder STA 222 may use the CBAP 227, which may have a direction 211 allocated by the AP/PCP 202, which was based on the determination during the BTI interval.”; para. [0075], “When the STA determines its best RX sector, the STA also determines its best TX sector. For example, during BTI, a responder STA may have determined that a certain direction is its best RX sector and due to antenna reciprocity, the responder STA may have determined that the direction is also its best TX sector. During DTI, the responder STA may transmit one or more frames (e.g., SSW, short SSW, etc.) in the direction. In turn, the AP 102 may listen in the direction during DTI. It is understood that the above descriptions are for purposes of illustration and are not meant to be limiting.”, support is found in para. [0048] of 62/417,719.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wang (see, Wang: para. [0064], the DMG beacon frames used in a sector sweep (e.g., I-TXSS)) in combination of the teachings of Chen (see, Chen: para. [0049], utilizing an enhancement to the beacon frames (e.g., extended DMG, EDMG) used in a sector sweep (e.g., I-TXSS)) in order for the AP (e.g., an initiator) to indicate which sector the AP will be listening and the STA (e.g., a responder) uses this information to respond to the AP in the specific directional allocation, which corresponds to the sector identified in the BTI (see, Chen: para. [0059] [0074], supports are found in para. [0043-0045] [0048] of 62/417,719.).
Wang in view of Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the subsequent time interval that comprises a plurality of time slots associated with the one of the plurality of beamforming sectors, and wherein the response frame is further transmitted within one of the plurality of time slots that is allocated for use by the communication device.
In the same field of endeavor, Maltsev teaches wherein the subsequent time interval that comprises a plurality of time slots associated with the one of the plurality of beamforming sectors, and wherein the response frame is further transmitted within one of the plurality of time slots that is allocated for use by the communication device (see, Maltsev: Page 8, “Each responding STA transmits one frame in the Initiator’s sector detected as the best one during BTI TXSS. The responder’s transmission is performed in directional mode using the operating sector trained during BTI TRN-R (some level of TX-RX EDMG STA reciprocity is assumed). To avoid collisions inside one sector, several time slots (space-time slots) may be assigned for responders’ transmissions.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wang in view of Chen in combination of the teachings of Maltsev in order to avoid collisions inside one sector by assigning several time slots (space-time slots) for responders’ transmissions (see, Maltsev: page 8).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the communication device is configured to operate in an unlicensed frequency band (see, Wang: para. [0064], “FIG. 10 illustrates a first part of beamforming training procedure for multiple antennas between an initiator and a responder. The initial operation can follow the IEEE 802.11ad beamforming protocol, called sector level sweep (SLS), to establish an initial link and then exchange IEEE 802.11ay beamforming capability.”, wherein it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that 802.11ad uses the 60GHz unlicensed band.).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the one or more frames comprise beacon frames, wherein the at least one frame is a beacon frame, and wherein the time interval comprises a beacon interval (see, Wang: para. [0064], “During the initiator I-TXSS, the initiator first transmits DMG beacon frames during beacon transmission interval (BTI).”, wherein the DMG beacon frames are received by the wireless device (e.g., responder) during the beacon transmission interval (BTI) time and wherein the BTI is equivalent to the time interval of the instant application.).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev teaches all limitations in claim 3.
Chen further teaches wherein the received beacon frame includes an extended schedule element indicating channel allocation information for transmitting response frames (see, Chen: para. [0073], “An EDMG extended schedule element is an element entry in a beacon or an announce frame showing a schedule for a beacon interval. There may be one or more extended schedule element entries conveyed within a beacon or an announce frame.”; para. [0074], “The AP 102 may use the EDMG extended schedule element, which may include one or more fields to indicate on which sector the AP 102 will be listening during each allocation. … An STA may use this information to decide to respond to the AP 102 in the specific directional allocation, which corresponds to the sector identified in the BTI.”, supports are found in para. [0043-0045] [0048] of 62/417,719).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the communication device is an initiator station (STA) (see, Wang: Fig. 2, wireless device 201; para. [0080], “The initiator is the transmitter of MIMO signal and the responder is the receiver of MIMO signal. Alternatively, the receiver of MIMO signal may also initiate the MIMO training procedure.”, wherein the receiver of MIMO signal is a responder device (i.e., station), and the receiver becomes the initiator and the initiator becomes the responder, in the opposite direction of communication flow, such that the wireless device (e.g., initiator) receives the MIMO signal discussed in claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the communication device is a responder station (STA) (see, Wang: Fig. 2, wireless device 201; para. [0080], “The initiator is the transmitter of MIMO signal and the responder is the receiver of MIMO signal.”, wherein the receiver of MIMO signal is a responder device (i.e., station) and the wireless device (e.g., responder) receives the MIMO signal discussed in claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the communication device is an access point (AP) (see, Wang: Fig. 9, Responder 902; para. [0060], “FIG. 9 illustrates MIMO transmission for IEEE 802.11ay.”, wherein the responder 902 is equivalent to an IEEE 802.11 access point device. Also, see Chen: Fig. 1, AP 102.).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites the method performed by the communication device of claim 1, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards the method of claim 10 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards the method of claim 10 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the method of claim 12 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 14 is directed towards the method of claim 10 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards the method of claim 10 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the method of claim 1 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 9 above.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chen further in view of Maltsev further in view of Rajagopal et al. (US 2016/0191132 A1, hereinafter Rajagopal).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev does not explicitly teach wherein the response frame is transmitted using a randomly selected resource.
In the same field of endeavor, Rajagopal teaches wherein the response frame is transmitted using a randomly selected resource (see, Rajagopal: Fig. 6 and para. [0062], “In the A-BFT duration 602, time is divided into multiple association slots (called sector sweep slots or SSW slots) determined by the beacon (up to a maximum of 8 slots in IEEE 802.11ad). ... Each STA, such as nodes 610 (labeled STA i) and 612 (labeled STA j) randomly or pseudo-randomly picks one of the SSW slots 606 and 608 slots for transmission to the node 614 (labeled PCP/AP).”, wherein the SSW slots 606 and 608 slots are randomly selected resources.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wang in view of Chen and Maltsev in combination of the teachings of Rajagopal in order for compliance with IEEE 802.11ad specifications which is using up to a maximum of 8 slots in the A-BFT duration determined by the beacon (see, Rajagopal: para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Wang in view of Chen, Maltsev, and Rajagopal teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Rajagopal further teaches wherein the randomly selected resource is a randomly selected time slot (see, Rajagopal: Fig. 6 and para. [0062], “Each STA, such as nodes 610 (labeled STA i) and 612 (labeled STA j) randomly or pseudo-randomly picks one of the SSW slots 606 and 608 slots for transmission to the node 614 (labeled PCP/AP).”, wherein the SSW slots 606 and 608 slots are randomly selected time slots.).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is directed towards the method of claim 10 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards the method of claim 14 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, 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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471