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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Chu et al. for the "BEACONING WITH RANGE EXTENSION" filed 10/04/2023 has been examined. This application claims priority from provisional application No. 63/378,321 filed on Oct. 4, 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Objections
3. Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the
patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the references disclose a system and method for the range extension frame forwarding in wireless communication systems, according to the essential features of the claims. Zhang discloses a method of broadcasting a beacon by a relay device in a basic service set (Col. 9; lines 30-38: An AP may signal a range extension mode in a beacon frame e.g., to indicate and/or enable BSS-wide range extension), comprising: receiving an announcement from a first device indicating whether the relay device is to forward a received beacon to a second device; receiving a beacon from the first device; and forwarding the beacon to the second device based upon the announcement (Fig. 15; Col. 2, lines 42-67, and Col. 28, lines 9-22 : relay node 1502 received, decodes and forwards a data frame 1524 to a destination node 1506, wherein traffic indication map indications for the new end-STA in a beacon from the Relay-AP. As seen in Fig. 5, The AP 502 broadcasts a TIM 530 with a positive indication of DL data buffered at the AP for STAs 506, 508, 510. The relay node may broadcast its beacon with the full TIM, the same as broadcast by the root AP).
Regarding claims 2, 17, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein receiving a ultra-high reliability (UHR) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) from the first device that announces the forwarding of the beacon (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, line 50 to Col. 10, line 17: a BSS operating channel established by the AP that features multiple channels used to transmit frames e.g., Physical Layer Protocol Data Units (PPDUs), beacons, management frames, etc. between the root-AP, a relay-STA, and end-STA).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein the beacon is forwarded after a short interframe space (SIFS) amount of time after an end of the received UHR PPDU (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, lines 55-62: After a short interframe space (SIFS) interval 212, the relay node 204 sends an ACK 214 to the AP 202 and sets the early ACK indication bits for the next outgoing frame to “11” - step 232)
Rrgarding claims 4, 18, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein a SERVICE field of a PPDU carrying the beacon transmitted by the relay device is same as a SERVICE field of the PPDU carrying the beacon received by the second device (Figs. 24-27; Col. 38, lines 31-44: the transmitter/source node calculates the ACK ID using the same formula as the receiver/responder/relay node i.e., using the partial FCS and the information from the scrambling seed in the SERVICE field of the frame being acknowledged).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein adjusting a timestamp of the forwarded beacons based upon a timestamp in the received beacon, a length of the beacon, a predefined interframe space (IFS) time, and a number of hops between the first device and the relay device (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, lines 55-62: After receiving the ACK 214, the AP 202 removes the data frame 210 from its transmission buffer and defers for a period of time equal to: MAX_PPDU+ACK+(2×SIFS) before the next event step 234).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein the forwarded beacon includes an indication that the forwarded beacon is a forwarded beacon (Col. 15, lines 12-25: the early ACK indication bits in response to a frame from the source node to be forwarded to the destination node).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein the forwarded beacon only carries information of the first device (Col. 15, lines 57-67: the source node STA sends frames e.g., data frames to the relay node to be forwarded to the destination node).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein sending a broadcast management frame announcing the information of a relay station to the second device (Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 17-29: The relay node n 504 broadcasts its beacon with a TIM 550, the same as broadcast by the root AP, with only positive indications of end-STAs that are associated with the relay node n 504).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein the forwarded beacon carries information of the first device and the relay device (Fig. 8; Col. 16, lines 35-48: When A-MPDUs are forwarded on a relay path, it may improve the efficiency of frame transmission on the relay path because the A-MPDU carries aggregated MPDUs).
Regarding claims 13, 19, 20, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches wherein receiving first block acknowledge from the second device indicating that a PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) from the first device was received by the second device; and transmitting a second block acknowledge to the first device indicating that a PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) from the first device was received by the second device (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, line 50 to Col. 10, line 27: An acknowledgement is received from the root AP on a condition that the root AP correctly receives the message and associates an identifier of the end-STA with an identifier of the R-AP).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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(a) 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) in view of Choi et al. (US#11,337,149).
Regarding claims 11-12, the references disclose a system and method for the range extension frame forwarding in wireless communication systems, according to the essential features of the claims. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth in the paragraph 5 above. However, Zhang reference does not explicitly disclose wherein forwarding the beacon to the second device using a backoff procedure and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) of the first/relay device. In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al. (US#11,337,149) teaches in Fig. 27 a diagram illustrated an example of forwarding association identifier (AID) target beacon and information on an allocated resource, in which in order to obtain PS of UEs, the AP can transmit information corresponding to a resource amount of a backoff rule during TBTT to which a backoff count (or CW) is applied in a beacon frame. For example, when backoff is performed in a unit of a transmitted trigger frame, the AP can transmit the number of trigger frames. (In this case, the number of trigger frames can be restricted to the number of trigger frames used for allocating a resource for random access). Or, when backoff is performed in a unit of a frequency resource (e.g., a sub-channel unit or an OFDMA resource allocation unit), the AP can transmit information on the total number of resources for random access such as the number of frequency resources in trigger frames transmitted during TBTT. In particular, it may be able to define a field to transmit information on the total number of trigger frame-based random accesses during TBTT in a beacon frame or the total number of resources of a trigger frame-based random access (Col. 31, lines 5-35: a backoff rule during TBTT to which a backoff count (or CW) is applied in a beacon frame).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently frame forwarding for range extension in a wireless network, and would have applied Choi’s transmitting/receiving a frame related to MU (Multi User) transmission into Zhang’s techniques for associating a new end-station (end-STA) with a relay access point (R-AP) in a relay transmissions. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang with the teaching of Choi since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR V. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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(a) 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) in view of Gan et al. (US#12,035,366).
Regarding claim 14, the references disclose a system and method for the range extension frame forwarding in wireless communication systems, according to the essential features of the claim. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) discloses a method of determining by a station whether to use a relay station in communication with an access point (Col. 9; lines 30-38: relay functionality allows range extension and supports packet/frame forwarding between source and destination nodes), comprising: receiving an ultra-high reliability (UHR) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) from the access point; receiving a PPDU from a first relay station; and determining whether to use the relay station to communicate with the AP (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, line 50 to Col. 10, line 17: a BSS operating channel established by the AP that features multiple channels used to transmit frames e.g., Physical Layer Protocol Data Units (PPDUs), beacons, management frames, etc. between the root-AP, a relay-STA, and end-STA).
However, Zhang reference does not explicitly disclose wherein determining a RSSI of the AP/Relay station based on the received PPDU from the AP/Relay station. In the same field of endeavor, Gan et al. (US#12,035,366) teaches in Fig. 1 a schematic diagram illustrated a system of a typical WLAN deployment scenario, in which before a device needs to send data on a channel, the device first receives data on this channel, and determines whether the channel is occupied by using a received signal strength indicator (RSSI). The RSSI is also referred to as clear channel assessment (CCA) sensitivity. Based on the 802.11 standard, when it is detected that an effective preamble has an RSSI (−82 dBm (decibels per milliwatt)) greater than or equal to a CCA threshold, the CCA indicates that the channel is in a busy state (Col. 7, line 62 to Col. 8, line 16: RSSI of the AP/Relay station based on the received PPDU from the AP/Relay station).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Gan teaches the method of claim 14. Gan further teaches that determining a third RSSI of the second relay station based on the received PPDU from the second relay station; and determining whether to use the first relay station or the second relay station to communicate with the access point based upon the second RSSI and the third RSSI (Figs. 1-2; Col. 7, line 12 to Col. 8, line 61: if a station that sends the PPDU is the relay, the BSS identifier in the PPDU is used to identify a BSS to which a module of a relay that sends the PPDU belongs. As shown in FIG. 1, if a relay 1 sends the PPDU to an AP in a BSS 1, the BSS identifier included in the PPDU is an identifier of the BSS 1 to which the relay-STA belongs).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently frame forwarding for range extension in a wireless network, and would have applied Gan’s Multi-hop relay functionality to achieve long-distance transmission into Zhang’s techniques for associating a new end-station (end-STA) with a relay access point (R-AP) in a relay transmissions. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang with the teaching of Gan since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR V. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receiving from the first device a multi-user request to send (MU-RTS) frame; sending a clear to send (CTS) frame to the first device; and guaranteeing an interframe space (IFS) accuracy between the PPDU carrying the received beacon and the PPDU carrying the forwarded beacon to be same as the IFS accuracy of the CTS frame and the MU-RTS frame, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Seok (US#9,125,179) is cited to show tmethod and apparatus for transmitting frame in WLAN system.
The Park et al. (US#2025/0385723) shows method and apparatus for performing sounding procedure in WLAN system.
The Baek et al. (US#2025/0379712) shows method and device for transmitting and receiving trigger frame in WLAN system.
The Rison et al. (US#2025/0119832) shows DL multiuser extension for non-HE PPDUS.
The Abouelseoud et al. (US#12,262,301) shows beaconing in small wavelength wireless networks.
The Wang et al. (US#2018/0206139) shows method and system for directional-band relay enhancements.
The Abedini et al. (US#11,848,741) shows beam management of layer-1 millimeter wave repeater using wideband signal.
The Ahn et al. (US#11,864,233) shows wireless communication method and terminal.
The Ahn et al. (US#11,700,546) shows multi-user wireless communication method and terminal using same.
The Verma et al. (US#11,926,993) shows coordinated AP spatial reuse.
15. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
17. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
12/18/2025
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477