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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 11/06/2024 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 recites limitation “the first frame comprises a plurality of user information fields, association identifiers of at least two of the plurality of user information fields are the same, and the at least two of the plurality of user information fields request the EHT compressed beamforming/channel quality indication report”, which is disclosed in Spec Fig. 5C as “User Info 2” and “User Info 3”. However, related Fig. 5B that indicates “User Info 2” and “User Info 3” belonging to two different STAs, “STA 2” and “STA 3”. An “association identifier” is unique for a STA. Therefore, having the same association identifier for two user information fields of two different STAs to request CQI information from a single STA does not comply with the disclosure.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IDS reference Huang; Po-Kai et al US 20190349067 A1, hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Huang teaches, a communication method, comprising:
sending, by a first device, a first frame to a second device (Huang [15], "In MU mode, and additional beamforming refinement protocol (BRP) trigger frame may be sent by an AP to solicit compressed beamforming information and CQI frames from beamformee STAs"; Fig. 2, item 214; [69] "The AP 202 may send a BRP trigger frame 214 to solicit compressed beamforming and CQI frames from the multiple user devices.". AP is “a first device”. STA is “a second device”), wherein the first frame requests one or more of N segments of an extremely high throughput (EHT) compressed beamforming/channel quality indication report, and N is an integer greater than 8 (Huang [17] " A BRP trigger frame currently uses eight bits in a feedback segment retransmission bitmap within a trigger-dependent user subfield. The feedback segment retransmission bitmap may indicate which segment of multiple beamforming report segments an AP is requesting, so to allow for more than eight segments (e.g., when more than eight antennas are available), an additional bit may be needed."; [27] "In one or more embodiments, the segmentation of IEEE 802.11 beamforming reporting may be increased (e.g., the number of segments used to provide the beamforming reporting may be increased) to allow for more than eight segmented reports …"; [28] "The feedback segment retransmission bitmap subfield may indicate the requested feedback segments of a compressed beamforming report."; [39] "Referring to Table 1, a next generation report may refer to an extremely high throughput (EHT) frame designed for EHT devices. Therefore, a beamforming report may be a HE compressed beamforming report, an EHT compressed beamforming report,"); and
receiving, by the first device, the EHT compressed beamforming/channel quality indication report from the second device (Huang [69] "The user device 204 may send a compressed beamforming and CQI frame 216").
With respect to claim 8, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding method of inter-working receiving side. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 15, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding apparatus. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Huang teaches the methods/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Huang further teaches, wherein any one of the N segments is carried in a second frame, the second frame comprises a first field and any one of the N segments, and the first field indicates a segment that is not fed back in the N segments (Huang [0037] “In one or more embodiments, still referring to the first option of the modified sounding feedback from STAs, … One reserved bit may be used to extend the remaining feedback segments field. When the bit is set, the remaining feedback segments field may be 8 plus the value of the remaining feedback segments field.”, [40] “In one or more embodiments, … the new compressed beamforming and CQI action frame, for next generation MIMO control, the frame may include … a remaining feedback segments field, a first feedback segment, …. The remaining feedback segments field may include at least 4 bits.”, teaches compressed beamforming/channel quality indication report comprises “a remaining feedback segments field” i.e., indicating a segment that is not fed back in the N segments).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Huang teaches the methods/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Huang further teaches, wherein the first frame comprises a second field, and the second field requests one or more of the N segments of the EHT compressed beamforming/channel quality indication report (Huang [28] “A trigger-dependent user information field may include at least X bits of a feedback segment retransmission bitmap, wherein X>8. The feedback segment retransmission bitmap subfield may indicate the requested feedback segments of a compressed beamforming report.").
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Huang teaches the methods/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 3, 10 and 17.
Huang further teaches, wherein a number of bits of the second field is W, at least one of the W bits of the second field indicates to request at least two of the N segments, and W is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (see Huang [28] having X bits).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Huang teaches the methods/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 3, 10 and 17.
Huang further teaches, wherein a number of bits of the second field is greater than or equal to N (implied in Huang [28]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Huang teaches the methods/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Huang further teaches, wherein the first frame comprises a second field, the second field indicates an index R of a first segment in consecutive (N-R) segments that need to be requested, and R is an integer greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to N-1 (see Huang “When the bit in position n (e.g., n=0 for least significant bits and n=X−1 for most significant bits) is one, the feedback segment with the remaining feedback segments equal to n is requested.”, remaining feedback segments (= segments that need to be requested)).
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 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.
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 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, as applied to rejection of claims 1 and 8 above, in view of LIU; Jianhan et al US 20190238288 A1, hereinafter LIU.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Huang teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
Huang does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, LIU suggests, wherein the first frame comprises a plurality of user information fields, association identifiers of at least two of the plurality of user information fields are the same, and the at least two of the plurality of user information fields request the EHT compressed beamforming/channel quality indication report (The claim is interpreted, under BRI, as a frame indicating related information to an STA in two different user fields and each user field comprises the same association ID of the STA. LIU [9] “For an uplink OFDMA transmission, the AP transmits a trigger frame to initiate an STA to transmit a trigger-based PPDU in OFDMA to the AP. In the trigger frame, multiple RUs are specified in the user information field, and the same STA ID is repeated in the same number of times in the “STA-ID” field of the user information fields. … Upon receiving the trigger frame, the STA identifies the multiple RUs associated with its STA ID or AIDs and transmits a PPDU to the AP in OFDMA by using the multiple RUs”. The same indication technique can be applied to request CQI information reporting in segments, from a STA by AP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huang to include the features as taught by LIU above in order to enhance spectral usage efficiency and frequency diversity of the network (LIU [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PARK; Eunsung US 20230397179 A1 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING FEEDBACK FRAME IN WIRELESS LAN SYSTEM
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475