DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 12/29/2025.
Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1,3, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claim interpretation
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Response to Arguments
The arguments/remarks presented by the applicant/applicant ‘s representative on 12/29/2025 were reviewed thoroughly, the following remarks by the applicant’s representative are addressed as to why the rejection is maintained:
“In contrast Liu does not teach or suggest the aforementioned recitations. For example, FIG. 3 of Liu illustrates a message exchange sequence among the wireless communication devices for joint transmission sounding in a WLAN. (See paragraph [0034]). In Liu, AP 311 acts as the coordinating AP, and AP2 and AP3 312~313 are configured for joint sounding and joint data transmission with STAl and STA2 314~315. (See paragraph [0034]). As shown in Liu, the coordinating AP first transmits a sounding announcement frame 301 and a sounding trigger frame 302 directed to the sounding APs, AP2 and AP3. (See paragraph [0034]). In response, Liu's AP2 and AP3 simultaneously transmit a joint sounding packet to STAl and STA2, which is a null data packet including training fields associated with the antennas of both AP2 and AP3. (See paragraph [0034]). In Liu, the sounded STAl and STA2 may analyze the OFDM training fields to calculate the channel response, and produce the steering matrix representing the CSI. (See paragraph [0034]). Liu's matrix is supplied to AP2 and AP3 in sounding feedback frames 304 and 305. (See paragraph [0034]).
Nowhere does Liu teach or suggest: (a) that coordinating a plurality of APs to perform a hybrid sounding signal process for a joint transmission by the plurality of APs; or (b) that coordinating the plurality of APs to perform the hybrid sounding comprises: (i) determining a sounding frame transmission time for each of the plurality of APs to concurrently transmit sounding frames from each of the plurality of APs, and (ii) determining an order for the plurality of APs to stagger sounding signals in the sounding frames such that the sounding frames from the plurality of APs are sent in a staggered and concurrent order. Rather, Liu discloses AP2 and AP3 simultaneously transmit a joint sounding packet to ST1l and STA2.”
Liu used in the last non-final rejection discloses the following:
Figure 1 and (¶ 0033 - ¶ 0034): step 101 of figure 3, discloses the coordinating AP (AP1) sends sounding announcement frames to the sounding APs (AP2 and AP3). Step 102 and its description pertaining to figure 3 discloses: “the sounding APs simultaneously send a joint sounding packet to multiple STAs, where the packet includes training signals for the AP antennas that will participate in the subsequent joint data transmission…” , the two steps above pertaining to figure 3, addresses the concern of the following statement made by the applicant quoted above: “(a) that coordinating a plurality of APs to perform a hybrid sounding signal process for a joint transmission by the plurality of APs; or (b) that coordinating the plurality of APs to perform the hybrid sounding comprises: (i) determining a sounding frame transmission time for each of the plurality of APs to concurrently transmit sounding frames from each of the plurality of APs.” In other words, the coordinating AP has to coordinate at least two access points to send sounding frame simultaneously and implies the transmission time must also be carefully determined in order to transmit the sounding frame simultaneously. The rest of limitation which states: (ii) determining an order for the plurality of APs to stagger sounding signals in the sounding frames such that the sounding frames from the plurality of APs are sent in a staggered and concurrent order, is also disclosed by Liu: the joint sounding packet as seen above contains training signal pertaining to the AP antennas, see ¶ 0033 in view of ¶ 0036. The LTFs are associated with different antennas, and as an example in ¶ 0036, AP2 transmits the first N2 LTFs and AP3 transmits the next N3 LTFs, this process can be refer to as staggered, since there is a first time interval used to transmit the first set of LTF and a second time interval for the transmission of the second set of LTFs. At the same time in ¶ 0036 discloses the LTFs can be transmitted in any suitable order. Looking at figure 4, 410 is the representation of a joint sounding packet. The LTFs are label 413. As seen in ¶ 0036, if you select a first set of LTF to be assigned to a AP2, then AP2 is order as being first, followed by the next set of LTF to be assigned to AP3. This is interpreted as being ordered transmission that is being staggered since the set of LTFs are being sent at different time inside the sounding frame and will be received and decoded one after the other. In conclusion, the rejection presented in the last office action is maintained. 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).
To further advance prosecution, the examiner presents the following reference that covers by itself or in combination the limitations of the independent claims: WO 2022/051408 (provided via the IDS), see figure 3, ¶ 0096 - ¶ 0104 and ¶ 0171. See figure 7B and ¶ 0191 for different staggering time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 – 8, 13 - 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2020/0037275 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses: A method (the method is seen in figure 1) comprising:
coordinating a plurality of Access Points (APs) [[APs]] to perform a hybrid sounding signal process for a joint transmission by the plurality of APs, wherein coordinating the plurality of APs to perform the hybrid sounding comprises:
including determining a sounding frame transmission time for each of the plurality of APs to concurrently transmit sounding frames from each of the plurality of APs, and
determining an order for the plurality of APs to stagger sounding signals in the sounding frames such that the sounding frames from the plurality of APs are sent in a staggered and concurrent order; and (Figure 1 and ¶ 0033 - ¶ 0034) : step 101 of figure 3, discloses the coordinating AP (AP1) sends sounding announcement frames to the sounding APs (AP2 and AP3). Step 102 in figure 3 discloses: “the sounding APs simultaneously send a joint sounding packet to multiple STAs, where the packet includes training signals for the AP antennas that will participate in the subsequent joint data transmission…” For staggering of sounding signal in the sounding frame see ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0036: the joint sounding packet as seen above contains training signal pertaining to the AP antennas, see ¶ 0033 in view of ¶ 0036. The LTFs are associated with different antennas, and as an example in ¶ 0036, AP2 transmits the first N2 LTFs and AP3 transmits the next N3 LTFs, this process can be refer to as staggered, since there is a first time interval used to transmit the first set of LTF and a second time interval for the transmission of the second set of LTFs. At the same time in ¶ 0036 discloses the LTFs can be transmitted in any suitable order. Looking at figure 4, 410 is the representation of a joint sounding packet. The LTFs are label 413. As seen in ¶ 0036, if you select a first set of LTF to be assigned to a AP2, then AP2 is order as being first, followed by the next set of LTF to be assigned to AP3. This is interpreted as being ordered transmission that is being staggered since the set of LTFs are being sent at different time inside the sounding frame and will be received and decoded one after the other.) and
performing the hybrid sounding signal process. [¶ 0007].
Note to the applicant:
The following reference alone or in combination with the reference of Liu also discloses the limitations of the independent claims:
WO 2022/051408 (provided via the IDS), see figure 3, ¶ 0096 - ¶ 0104 and ¶ 0171. See figure 7B and ¶ 0191 for different staggering time.
Claims 8 and 15 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1. Such elements as a memory/processing unit and non-transitory computer readable medium are disclosed by Liu, see ¶ 0052, ¶ 0055.
Claim 6, Liu further discloses: . The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending an announcement signal to one or more clients. [¶ 0033].
Claim 13 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 13.
Claim 7, Liu further discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving channel information from one or more clients based on the hybrid sounding signal process; and determining AP operation of the plurality of APs based on the channel information. [¶ 0005].
Claims 14 and 20 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 7.
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) 2 – 5, 9 – 12 and 16 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0037275 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0319886 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Liu further discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of APs comprise a first AP, a second AP, and a third AP;
coordinating the plurality of APs to perform the hybrid sounding signal process further comprises determining a second sounding frame transmission time; and
performing the hybrid sounding signal process comprises, during the sounding frame transmission time and the second sounding frame transmission time:
transmitting, by the first AP, first AP sounding signals,
transmitting, by the second AP, second AP sounding signals, and
transmitting, by the third AP, third AP sounding signals, wherein the first AP sounding signals, the second AP sounding signals, and the third AP sounding signals are staggered in the order in the sounding frame transmission time and the second sounding frame transmission time. [¶ 0049 states: “…the present disclosure are described in detail with reference to a system with two sounding APs. Both the schemes of using joint stacked LTFs and using subcarrier-interleaved LTFs can be generalized to systems with any number of sounding AP, That is, a person of ordinary skill in the art can easily apply the method of claim 1 to any number of APs].
Liu does not explicitly disclose multiple frames, however Wang in the same field of endeavor discloses multiple frame transmission, see Figure 7B and ¶ 0191. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s system in view of Wang. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for an AP to share its transmission resources (e.g., frequency and/or time) of an obtained TXOP with a set of APs. [¶ 0097 of Wang].
Claims 9 and 16 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Liu further discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein: the plurality of APs further comprise a fourth AP; and performing the hybrid sounding signal process comprises: during the sounding frame transmission time and the second sounding frame transmission time: transmitting, by the fourth AP, fourth AP sounding signals, wherein the fourth AP sounding signals are staggered in the order in the sounding frame transmission time and the second sounding frame transmission time.
[¶ 0049 states: “…the present disclosure are described in detail with reference to a system with two sounding APs. Both the schemes of using joint stacked LTFs and using subcarrier-interleaved LTFs can be generalized to systems with any number of sounding AP, That is, a person of ordinary skill in the art can easily apply the method of claim 1 to any number of APs. Wang in the same field of endeavor discloses multiple frame transmission, see Figure 7B and ¶ 0191.].
Claims 10 and 17 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Liu further discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of APs comprises a first AP, a second AP, a third AP, and a fourth AP;
coordinating the plurality of APs to perform the hybrid sounding signal process further comprises determining a second sounding frame transmission time; and
performing the hybrid sounding signal process comprises:
transmitting, by the first AP, first AP sounding signals during the sounding frame transmission time,
transmitting, by the second AP, second AP sounding signals during the sounding frame transmission time,
transmitting, by the third AP, third AP sounding signals during the second sounding frame transmission time, and
transmitting, by the fourth AP, fourth AP sounding signals during the second sounding frame transmission time, wherein the first AP sounding signals, the second AP sounding signals, the third AP sounding signals, and the fourth AP sounding signals are staggered in the order in the sounding frame transmission time and the second sounding frame transmission time. [¶ 0049 states: “…the present disclosure are described in detail with reference to a system with two sounding APs. Both the schemes of using joint stacked LTFs and using subcarrier-interleaved LTFs can be generalized to systems with any number of sounding AP”, That is, a person of ordinary skill in the art can easily apply the method of claim 1 to any number of APs. Wang in the same field of endeavor discloses multiple frame transmission, see Figure 7B and ¶ 0191.].
Liu does not explicitly disclose multiple frames, however Wang in the same field of endeavor discloses multiple frame transmission, see Figure 7B and ¶ 0191. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s system in view of Wang. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for an AP to share its transmission resources (e.g., frequency and/or time) of an obtained TXOP with a set of APs. [¶ 0097 of Wang].
Claims 11 and 18 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim 5, Liu further discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein: coordinating the plurality of APs to perform the hybrid sounding signal process further comprises determining a second sounding transmission time; and performing the hybrid sounding signal process comprises, during the sounding frame transmission time and second sounding frame transmission time: transmitting, by the plurality of APs, AP sounding signals in the order. [¶ 0049 states: “…the present disclosure are described in detail with reference to a system with two sounding APs. Both the schemes of using joint stacked LTFs and using subcarrier-interleaved LTFs can be generalized to systems with any number of sounding AP”,That is, a person of ordinary skill in the art can easily apply the method of claim 1 to any number of APs. Wang in the same field of endeavor discloses multiple frame transmission, see Figure 7B and ¶ 0191.].
Claims 12 and 19 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
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 MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463