DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on March 30, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-19, 21, and 22 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING AN EXTREMELY HIGH THROUGHPUT MULTIPLE USER PHYSICAL LAYER PROTOCOL DATA UNIT (EHT MU PPDU) AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING A TRIGGER FRAME.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: On line 3 of paragraph 00302, replace “13” with --1300--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 11, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noh et al. (US 2021/0044398 A1).
Consider claim 1, Noh et al. disclose a method, applied to an access point, for transmitting a physical layer protocol data unit (Noh et al. disclose a method performed by a transmitting WLAN device 104A, wherein the WLAN device is an access point (AP STA) - see ¶[0045], ¶[0046], ¶[0057], FIG. 1, and FIG. 36 illustrating a method for generating and transmitting a frame at ¶[0174]), the method comprising:
generating an extremely high throughput multiple user physical layer protocol data unit (EHT MU PPDU) (Noh et al. disclose generating an EHT PPDU for multi-user transmission - see ¶[0100] “an EHT PPDU that includes a legacy part …, an EHT signal A field (EHT-SIG-A), an EHT signal B field (EHT-SIG-B) …”, ¶[0109], [0110] describing the EHT MU PPDU and EHT-SIG content channels for OFDMA/DL-MU-MIMO, and ¶[0175] “the method 3600 may commence … with an error correction unit … receiving a bitstream” and generating the frame), wherein
the EHT MU PPDU includes a resource unit allocation subfield, indicating resource unit allocation of a plurality of stations (Noh et al. disclose that the common field of the EHT-SIG content channel “contains information regarding resource unit allocation, such as RU assignment to be used in the EHT modulated fields of the PPDU, the RUs allocated for MU-MIMO, and the number of users in MU-MIMO allocations” -see ¶[0110] and also ¶[0134] “the RU allocation subfield has one or more bits (e.g., 8 bits) to indicate RU assignment to STAs”), and
a resource unit corresponding to at least one of the plurality of stations is used for duplicate transmission (Noh et al. disclose that “data could be assigned (e.g., duplicated) to each RU to earn MRC gain,” whereby the same data is duplicated across resource units allocated to a station - see ¶[0136]), and
a user field of the EHT MU PPDU includes first information indicating that a resource unit corresponding to the user field is used for the duplicate transmission (Noh et al. disclose “a user field in the user specific field includes first information bits (e.g., one or more bits) for a non-MU-MIMO allocation to indicate that assigned RUs are duplicated. For example, when the first information bits are set to a first state (e.g., 1), this indicates that the data assigned/within the RUs are duplicated” - see ¶[0137] and also ¶[0138] disclosing the same first information bits in a user field for a MU-MIMO allocation); and
sending the EHT MU PPDU (Noh et al. disclose transmitting the frame to another wireless device - see ¶[0182] operation 3614 “the wireless device transmits the frame to another wireless device … and the frame includes the indication regarding duplicated data in a plurality of resource units” and also FIG. 36).
Consider claim 11, Noh et al. disclose a method, applied to a target station, for transmitting a physical layer protocol data unit (Noh et al. disclose a receiving WLAN device configured to receive data - see ¶[0069]-[0078] describing the Rx SPU (RxSP) 326 and receiving wireless device and ¶[0046] describing non-AP STAs), the method comprising:
receiving an extremely high throughput multiple user physical layer protocol data unit (EHT MU PPDU) (Noh et a. disclose a receiving device that receives and processes the EHT PPDU - see ¶[0071] “The RF receiver 344 receives an RF signal via the antenna 354” and ¶[0100], ¶[0109], and ¶[0110]), wherein
the EHT MU PPDU includes a resource unit allocation subfield, indicating resource unit allocation of a plurality of stations, and a resource unit corresponding to at least one of the plurality of stations is used for duplicate transmission (see ¶[0110], ¶[0134], and ¶[0136], as applied to claim 1 above);
determining, based on the EHT MU PPDU, that a plurality of resource units corresponding to the target station are used for duplicate transmission (Noh et al. disclose that the first information bits in the user field indicate to the receiving device that the assigned RUs allocated to that device are duplicated - see ¶[0137], ¶[0138] and also ¶[0181] “the frame includes a signaling field in a preamble of the frame and the signaling field includes a set of user fields for the wireless device, wherein the indication is in the set of user fields”); and
performing combined decoding on information carried in the plurality of resource units (Noh et al. disclose combining the duplicated data received on the plurality of resource units to earn maximum-ratio-combining (MRC) gain - see ¶[0136] “data could be assigned (e.g., duplicated) to each RU to earn MRC gain” and also ¶[0074]–[0078] describing the demapper
314 and decoder 310 processing the received streams).
Consider claim 14, and as applied to claim 11 above, Noh et al. disclose wherein a user field that is in the EHT MU PPDU and that corresponds to the target station includes first information, and the first information indicates that a resource unit corresponding to the user field is used for duplicate transmission (Noh et al. disclose “a user field in the user specific field includes first information bits … to indicate that assigned RUs are duplicated,” wherein the user field corresponds to the target wireless device to which the RUs are allocated; see ¶[0137]–[0138] and also ¶[0181]).
Consider claim 18, Noh et al. disclose a communication apparatus, comprising:
a communication interface (Noh et al. disclose an RF transceiver 240 including an RF transmitter 242/342 and antenna(s) for transmitting and receiving – see FIGs. 2 and 3 and ¶[0052], ¶[0057], and ¶[0068]); and
processing circuitry having at least a processor (Noh et al. disclose a baseband processor 210 including a MAC processor 212 and a PHY processor 222, and further discloses a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions - see ¶[0047]–[0050] and ¶[0184] “a processor coupled to the memory device, wherein the set of instructions when executed by the processor cause the device to …”), wherein
the communication interface is configured to communicate with a module outside the communication apparatus (Noh et al. disclose the RF transceiver 240 configured to transmit information to and receive information from other WLAN devices - see ¶[0052]), and the processing circuitry is configured to run a computer program or instructions, causing the
communication apparatus to:
generate an extremely high throughput multiple user physical layer protocol data unit (EHT MU PPDU), wherein the EHT MU PPDU includes a resource unit allocation subfield, indicating resource unit allocation of a plurality of stations, and a resource unit corresponding to at least one of the plurality of stations is used for duplicate transmission, and a user field of the EHT MU PPDU includes first information indicating that a resource unit corresponding to the user field is used for the duplicate transmission (see ¶[0100], ¶[0110], ¶[0134], ¶[0136], ¶[0137], and ¶[0138], as applied to claim 1 above; and also ¶[0184] disclosing a processor executing instructions to perform the frame generation); and
send the EHT MU PPDU (Noh et al. disclose transmitting the frame - see ¶[0182] and FIG. 36, operation 3614).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US 2021/0044398 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0168701 A1).
Consider claims 2 and 12, and as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, Noh et al. disclose wherein the user specific field included in the EHT MU PPDU includes a plurality of user fields, each including a station identifier and corresponding to a resource unit, and the first information indicating duplicated RUs (see ¶[0110], ¶[0134], and ¶[0137]).
However, Noh et al. do not expressly disclose that station identifiers in at least two user fields are the same to indicate that at least two resource units corresponding to those user fields are used for duplicate transmission.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. disclose allocating a first RU and a second RU to the same station, wherein the second data field transmitted on the second RU is a duplicate of the first data field transmitted on the first RU (see the abstract, ¶[0005], and ¶[0208] “the first RU and the second RU may be located in… allocated to a same receiving station”, ¶[0279], and claim 6). Kim et al. thereby teaches associating the same target station with the plurality of RUs used for duplicate transmission.
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 indicate Noh et al.’s duplicated resource units by using the same station identifier in at least two user fields, as taught by Kim et al., in order to unambiguously associate the plurality of duplicated resource units with a single target station so that the receiver can identify and combine the duplicated data (see ¶[0006] of Kim et al.), thereby improving data transmission reliability in a power-limited multi-user environment (Noh et al. - ¶[0135]–[0136]).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Noh et al., as modified by Kim et al., disclose the method of claim 2. In addition, Kim et al. further disclose that the resource units allocated to the same station for duplicate transmission may be located in adjacent or non-adjacent frequency bands (see ¶[0312] “the first RU and the second RU may be located in non-adjacent frequency bands”; FIGS. 33–34 illustrating RUs distributed non-contiguously), and Noh et al. disclose distributing RUs both contiguously and non-contiguously across the frequency spectrum (see ¶[0130]–[0132]).
Therefore, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least two resource units that
are consecutive or non-consecutive, for the same reason of flexibly assigning duplicated resources to obtain frequency diversity gain (see ¶[0136] of Noh et al.).
Consider claims 7 and 15, and as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, Noh et al. disclose the first information in a user field indicating RU duplicate transmission (¶[0137]).
Noh et al. do not expressly recite that the first information is carried in bit B15, or that an MCS field value is 14, or that the MCS value is any one of 16 to 31. However, Noh et al. teach that the first information “bits (e.g., one or more bits)” indicate duplication (¶[0137] of Noh et al.) and Kim et al. teaches encoding the same-data indication (SDI) in the per-user signaling of the SIG field (¶[0276]-[0283] and FIGs. 28–34 of Kim et al.).
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 encode Noh et al.’s first information in a specific reserved bit (such as a reserved bit of the user field) or by a designated MCS value, because selecting a particular reserved bit position or MCS codepoint to carry an indicator is a routine and predictable design choice among a finite number of identified, predictable signaling solutions (see KSR), yielding the expected result of conveying the duplication indication without added overhead (see ¶[0137] of Noh et al. and ¶[0282]-[0283] of Kim et al.).
Consider claims 8, 16, and 22, and as applied to claims 1, 14, and 18 above, Noh et al. disclose first information in a user field indicating RU duplicate transmission (¶[0137]) and discloses duplication of data across a plurality of resource units in defined multiples/ratios (¶[0136] and ¶[0145]-[0148] describing proportional round-robin distribution across a number of segments/RUs).
Noh et al. do not expressly disclose that the user field further includes second information
indicating the quantity of duplicate transmissions of the resource unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teach per-RU signaling that distinguishes groups of RUs carrying the same duplicated data via a sequence number (SN) in addition to the same-data indication (¶[0291]-[0294] and FIGS. 31–34), thereby signaling how many/which RUs carry the duplicated data.
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 include, in Noh et al.’s user field, second information indicating the quantity of duplicate transmissions, as suggested by Kim et al.’s per-RU sequence/grouping signaling, in order to inform the receiver of the number of duplicated copies to be combined, thereby enabling correct combined decoding and predictable reliability gain (see ¶[0136] of Noh et al. and see ¶[0006] and ¶[0291] of Kim et al.).
Consider claim 19, and as applied to claim 18 above, Noh et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the communication apparatus of claim 18 for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 2 and above.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US 2021/0044398 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0168701 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Inohiza (US 12,218,787 B2).
Consider claims 4 and 13, and as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, Noh et al. disclose at least two user fields corresponding to at least two resource units used for duplicate transmission (see ¶[0137]).
Noh et al. do not expressly disclose that a value of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field of at least one user field is 15 to indicate that dual carrier modulation (DCM) is used for the at least two resource units.
In the same field of endeavor, Inohiza discloses a user field containing an MCS subfield and a DCM subfield indicating whether dual carrier modulation is applied to the data field (see Table 4 and column 10 line 65 to column 11 line 10). The use of a designated MCS value to signal DCM is a conventional and recognized 802.11 signaling mechanism.
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 signal, via an MCS field value of 15 in a user field, that dual carrier modulation is used for Noh et al.’s duplicated resource units, as taught by Inohiza’s MCS/DCM signaling, in order to further improve reception reliability by combining the DCM repetition gain with the RU duplication gain in the power-limited operating mode (see ¶[0136] of Noh et al. and Table 4 of Inohiza). Applicant’s own specification confirms DCM and RU duplication are complementary reliability techniques (spec ¶[0212]–[0219]).
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US 2021/0044398 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0289500 A1).
Consider claims 6 and 21, and as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, Noh et al. disclose duplicate transmission of a resource unit (¶[0136]).
Noh et al. do not expressly disclose that a quantity of duplicate transmissions of the resource unit is pre-specified through negotiation with a station before the EHT MU PPDU is
sent.
In the same field of endeavor, Yang et al. disclose9 that a transmitting device determines UL/DL transmission parameters, including a number N of duplicates, and indicates or coordinates those parameters with the station prior to transmission (¶[0098]–[0099], ¶[0127] “a number N of generated PPDU duplicates… where N is an integer greater than one”, and ¶[0108]–[0109] describing allocation/coordination of duplicated resources via a trigger/parameter exchange).
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 pre-specify the quantity of duplicate transmissions through negotiation with the station, as taught by Yang et al., so that both the AP and the station share a common understanding of the number of duplicated copies, ensuring correct combined reception and efficient use of the power-limited channel (see ¶[0055] and ¶[0099] of Yang et al. and ¶[0135]-[0136] of Noh et al.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Noh et al. (US 2021/0044398 A1).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Noh et al. disclose wherein the resource unit allocation subfield indicates that the resource unit is used for duplicate transmission. Noh et al. disclose that the indication regarding whether data is duplicated between a plurality of resource units is set in the frame in association with the RU allocation signaling in the common/signaling field (¶[0181] “the frame includes a signaling field in a preamble of the frame and the signaling field includes a set of user fields… wherein the indication is in the set of user fields”, ¶[0134] describing the RU allocation subfield indicating RU assignment to STAs, ¶[0181] operation 3612 “setting an indication in the frame as to whether data is duplicated between a plurality of resource units”). To the extent the indication is argued to be distinct from the RU allocation subfield itself, it would have been obvious to carry the duplicate-transmission indication in or in association with the RU allocation subfield, as Noh et al. expressly contemplate signaling duplication within the frame’s resource-allocation signaling structure, in order to inform the receiver of the duplicated resource allocation with minimal signaling overhead (¶[0134] and ¶[0181]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 11-17 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered references to Noh et al. (US 2021/0044398 A1), Kim et al. (US 2025/0168701 A1), and Yang et al. (US 2021/0289500 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited references were set forth above.
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record do not teach or reasonably suggest carrying the first information or the second information in the specifically recited reserved bit positions, namely “data bits B20 to B25 of a 1st symbol in a universal signal field U-SIG, or a data bit B2 or B8 of a 2nd symbol in the U-SIG, or data bits B13 to B16 of a 1st symbol in an extremely high throughput signal field EHT-SIG.” While Noh et al. teach a user-field duplicate-transmission indicator generally (¶[0137]) and the applied references teach various duplication signaling, none maps the duplicate-transmission indication to these particular U-SIG/EHT-SIG disregard/validate bit positions, and there is no articulated rationale of record to arrive at this specific bit-position mapping without impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:15 am to 4:15 pm EST.
SPE 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.
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.
Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez
R.P.G./rpg
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
September 24, 2026
