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 (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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 April 202 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 April 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Verma.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0046719) in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0081649 as supported by the corresponding passages and drawings of KR 10-2020-0018547 and KR 10-2020-0029837) and Verma et al. (US 2019/0124556). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method of wireless data transmission (fig. 1A), the method comprising: transmitting, by an access point (item 102), a trigger frame over a wireless network (fig. 2, item 200) to a plurality of stations (items 110 and 112), the trigger frame configured to initiate an uplink transmission involving the plurality of stations (fig. 2, UL MU PPDUs); and within a period of time after transmitting the trigger frame (fig. 2, illustrated gap between the trigger frame and PPDUs; fig. 9, offset; para. 81), receiving one or more response frames from at least one station of the plurality of stations (fig. 2, UL MU PPDUs), the one or more response frames being received responsive to the trigger frame (fig. 2 UL MU PPDU; para. 64).
However, Wang fails to disclose receiving a header of one or more response frames from at least one station of the plurality of stations, the header of the one or more response frames relating to the uplink transmission and being received responsive to the trigger frame. Jang teaches headers for PPDUs (figs. 4 and 18; para. 189, especially the last sentence and paras. 190, 195, 202-203 and 205; note: header or preamble of a triggered uplink PPDU). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have receiving a header of one or more response frames from at least one station of the plurality of stations, the header of the one or more response frames relating to the uplink transmission and being received responsive to the trigger frame in the invention of Wang. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing a standardized data unit and/or uplink control signaling as is known in the art (Jang, figs. 4 and 18; paras. 189-190, 195, 202-203 and 205; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have receiving a header of one or more response frames from at least one station of the plurality of stations, the header of the one or more response frames relating to the uplink transmission and being received responsive to the trigger frame in the invention of Wang. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing a standardized data unit and/or uplink control signaling as is known in the art (Jang, figs. 4 and 18; paras. 189-190, 195, 202-203 and 205; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Wang in view of Jang fails to teach and make obvious wherein the trigger frame includes an indication of an uplink bandwidth of about 320 MHz. Verma discloses this feature (fig. 4; para. 51; para. 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the trigger frame include an indication of an uplink bandwidth of about 320 MHz in the invention of Wang in view of Jang. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing an allocation for various devices as is known in the art (Verma, fig. 4; paras. 46 and 51; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of stations includes a plurality of non-access point stations participating in an uplink operation relating to the uplink transmission (Wang, figs. 2 and 12-13).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame identifies the plurality of stations to participate in an uplink operation (Wang, fig. 9, STA IDs; para. 84).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame assigns a resource block
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein at least one station of the plurality of stations is to make an adjustment, based on the trigger frame (Wang, para. 80; note: trigger frames for different periods), at least one of: a timing (Wang, paras. 71, 81 and 83; note: different timing (offsets) for transmitting an uplink frame), a frequency (Wang, para. 85; para. 66 and 71; note: selection of different RUs), or a power level (Wang, paras. 71 and 86; note: power control information for different power levels).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 5, wherein the adjustment is made in relation to the uplink transmission (Wang, figs. 2 and 9).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 5, wherein the power level includes a transmission power (Wang, paras. 71 and 86).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more response frames includes an aggregation of response frames (Wang, fig. 2; note: UL MU PPDUs transmitted at a similar time and block acknowledged – para. 121).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more response frames includes one or more acknowledgements (Wang, fig. 13, item 1324; para. 128, last three sentences).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame is sent in response to the access point identifying the plurality of stations (Wang, paras. 76, 104, 110-112, 126 and 130; note: discovery of a STA and a trigger frame to allow the STA to communicate).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1 further comprising scheduling a time to send the trigger frame, wherein the trigger frame is sent based on the scheduling (Wang, fig. 3 and paras. 67-69).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame causes two or more stations of the plurality of stations to transmit data simultaneously (Wang, fig. 2, UL MU PPDUs; para. 64, especially the third sentence).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 12, the data includes a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (Wang, fig. 2 and para. 64).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame includes one or more fields or sub-fields that are readable by the plurality of stations (Wang, fig. 9; paras. 78-86).
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission is an Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) uplink transmission or multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MU-MIMO) uplink transmission (Wang, para. 23, especially the penultimate sentence; para. 62).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more acknowledgements are received on respective assigned resource blocks in response to the trigger frame (Wang, para. 100, especially the last sentence; para. 103, especially the last three sentences).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame indicates a length for the one or more response frames (Wang, para. 72, lines 18-20; note: duration of a UL MU response; para. 83).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Jang and Verma as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 10,454,798).
Regarding claims 6-7, Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 5, wherein an adjustment to the timing includes an indication that the plurality of stations are to begin transmission of the response frame within particular amount of time after a last symbol of the trigger frame (Wang, para. 81; note: offset timing after the end of a current trigger frame; para. 86; note: symbols from modulation and coding) but not after a last symbol of the trigger frame as received by the plurality of stations. Additionally, Wang in view of Jang and Verma fails to teach and makes obvious the method of claim 5, wherein an adjustment to the timing includes an indication that the plurality of stations are to begin transmission of the response frame within particular amount of time after receiving the trigger frame.
However, Sun discloses offset timing based on the end of trigger frame as received (fig. 2; col. 6, line 54 through col. 7, line 35; note: SIFS between the received trigger frame and the UL-OFDM frame; note: SIFS is related to a received processing delay of a received frame as is known in the art; specification of the instant application, para. 45, especially the last six sentences). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adjustment to the timing include an indication that the plurality of stations are to begin transmission of the response frame within particular amount of time after a last symbol of the trigger frame is received by the plurality of stations and an adjustment to the timing includes an indication that the plurality of stations are to begin transmission of the response frame within particular amount of time after receiving the trigger frame in the invention of Wang in view of Jang and Verma. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, accommodating for trip delays and processing delays in multiuser communication as is known in the art (Sun, figs. 2 and 4, and col. 6, line 54 through col. 7 line 35; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Jang and Verma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srinivasa et al. (US 20200163152).
Wang in view of Jang and Verma teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame includes frame check sequence (FCS) (Wang, fig. 5 and para. 72) but fails to teach and make obvious cyclic redundancy check (CRC) information. Srinivasa discloses an FCS is CRC information (para. 42, especially the last sentence). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a trigger frame include CRC information in the invention of Wang in view of Jang and Verma. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing a specific type of check sequence as is known in the art (Srinivasa, para. 42; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights