DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on December 30, 2025, after the non-final rejection of the application.
The Amendment filed 12/30/25 has been entered. Claims 17 and 19-20 were cancelled. Claims 1-16 and 18 are pending, of which claims 1, 13, 16, and 18 were amended.
In light of amendments, the objection to claims 1, 16, and 18 was withdrawn.
The rejection(s) of amended claims 1, 16 and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1, 16 and 18 have been considered but are not persuasive.
a/ The applicant states that Verma fails to teach that the STA determines the
available or unavailable channels or bandwidths.
To be specific, Verma fails to disclose "wherein a part which is not
available in the first resource region is determined by the STA" as required by amended claim 1.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First of all, Verma discloses the STA is allocated with a group of four channels, e.g., first resource region, for upstream transmission from STAT to access point {AP} [0068]. Also, the STAT receives the bandwidth exclusion zone list, of which frequencies are restricted for transmitting signals [0011, 0060, Fig. 7] and compares the frequency ranges of channels in the group of channels with an Exclusion BW Zone list, the WLAN device (which can be interpreted as a STA) is able to determine “a part which is not available in the first resource region”. [0095].
Thus, Verma does teach that the STA determines the available or unavailable channels or bandwidths.
b/ The applicant states that Verma fails to disclose the claimed
"trigger information including information related to a transmission on a first resource region from the STA" as required by claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Verma discloses the STA is allocated with a group of four channels (#1 to #4), e.g., first resource region, for upstream transmission from STAT to access point {AP} in a trigger frame [0068], which indicates which channels are available (channel #1 and #4) for the STA to utilize [0075]. Verma further mentions that indicating channels that are not allocated {channel #2 and #4} [0075 or Fig.6] or specifying transmissions in portions of channel #2 and #4 [0075][0084][0094].
Thus, Verma does disclose "trigger information including information related to a transmission on a first resource region from the STA" as required by claim 1.
Consequently, the rejections of claims 1-16 and 18 is still to be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US 20190199491 A1), hereinafter referred to as Verma.
Regarding claim 1:
Verma discloses a method (method of transmitting wireless transmission in wireless local area network {WLAN} [0006]), comprising:
receiving, by a station {STAT} from an access point (AP), trigger information related to a transmission on a first resource region from the STA (receiving a trigger frame [0084] from access point {AP} that allocates a channel group including first and second channels, e.g., first resource region [0094]); and
transmitting, by the STAT, a trigger-based physical layer protocol data unit (TB PPDU) on a second resource region (transmitting wireless transmission to AP on second portion of first channel, e.g., second resource region [0095-0096], wherein wireless transmission is triggered transmission using {EHT} PPDU [0080, lines 1-2]) based on the AP having a specific capability (based on AP supporting communication using partial channel puncturing, e.g., specific capability [0083]);
wherein the second resource region corresponds to a part of the first resource region (wherein second portion of first channel corresponds to first and second channels [0083]);
wherein a part which is not available in the first resource region is determined by the STA (wherein frequency ranges of channels in group of channels are
compared with an Exclusion BW Zone list [0095].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit a PDDU to the AP using a second resource region that is determined based on the first resource region assigned by AP; thus enhancing transmission scheme while concurrently avoiding frequencies used by an incumbent system [0004].
Regarding claim 2:
Verma discloses all features of claim 1.
Verma further discloses the specific capability is related to whether transmission of the TB PPDU is allowed in the part of the first resource region (successfully transmitting data to AP using partial channel puncturing when utilizing capability, configuration, e.g., resource region [0070]).
Regarding claim 3:
Verma discloses all features of claim 1.
Verma further discloses the second resource region is included in remaining resource regions excluding the part which is not available in the first resource region (second portion of first channel is included in first channel, but not in portion of channel that overlaps with exclusion zone [0095-0096]).
Regarding claim 4:
Verma discloses all features of claim 1.
Verma further discloses the second resource region is determined by the STA (determining a f second portion of first channel does not overlap bandwidth of exclusion zone [0095].
Regarding claim 5:
Verma discloses all features of claim 1.
Verma further discloses that, for AP and STA do not interfere with incumbent wireless signals, a wireless connection between AP and STA is configured so that it does not use frequencies that overlap with incumbent wireless signals [0066].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that, when STAT determines the second resource region does not overlap with another incumbent wireless signal, it informs such information to AP via a TB PPDU; thus allowing AP to quickly receive PPDU transmission.
Thus, Verma does suggest all limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 13:
Verma discloses all features of claim 1.
Verma further discloses information on the specific capability is included in other frame distinguished from the frame in which the trigger information is included (capability indicator indicating support for partial channel puncturing is in a management frame [0013]).
Regarding claim 14:
Verma discloses all features of claim 1.
Verma further discloses that the trigger frame also may indicate which channels are available for the STA to utilize or not utilize [0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to also include information on channels associated with channel puncturing in a trigger frame; thus allowing STAT to quickly receive a more complete configuration for transmitting PPDU to AP.
Regarding claim 15:
Verma discloses all features of claim 1.
Verma further discloses based on the first resource region being a resource region for a multi user-multiple input multiple output (MU-MIMO) of the STA different from the STA, the TB PPDU is transmitted on the first resource region (determining either single user {SU} or MU transmissions indicated in unified SU/MU PPDU format, which includes resources allocations for one or more STATs [0188, lines 1-4 and 15-20]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit the TB PPDU on the first resource based on the first resource region being a resource region for a multi user-multiple input multiple output (MU-MIMO) of the STA different from the STA; thus enhancing data communications in higher bandwidth communication by unified SU/MU PDDU format.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim above, except that claim 16 is in a device claim format, and wherein Verma [in claim 16] also discloses a station (STA) (wireless communication device, element 800 in Fig.9) comprising: at least one transceiver (radio, element 804 in Fig.9); and at least one processor (processor, element 806 in Fig.9) connected to the at least one transceiver – being operated to perform claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 16 above, except that claim 18 is from the perspective of an access point (AP, element 902 in Fig.9A), comprising: at least one transceiver (antennas, element 920 in Fig.9A); and at least one processor (application processor, element 930 in Fig.9A)connected to the at least one transceiver – being operated to perform claimed functionalities.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20210045151 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen .
Regarding claim 6:
Verma discloses all features of claim 5.
Verma does not explicitly disclose information indicating the second resource region is included in an universal-signal (U-SIG) field of the TB PPDU; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Chen’s disclosure as below.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor, discloses information indicating the second resource region is included in an universal-signal (U-SIG) field of the TB PPDU (utilization of various parts of wireless channel, e.g., for subchannel puncturing, is in U-SIG field of TB PPDU [0085, 0057] and element 1016 of Fig.10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to include the second resource region in an universal-signal (U-SIG) field of the TB PPDU; thus allowing the receiver to interpret and begin decoding other parameters, e.g., EHT PPDU for different PPDU types.
Regarding claim 7:
Verma in view of Chen discloses all features of claim 6.
Verma does not, while Chen further discloses the second resource region is indicated based on 5-bit punctured channel indication information in the U-SIG field (bandwidth {BW}, e.g., resource region, field is included in EHT-SIG-A field, with 5-bit field for indicating punctured channels and puncturing mode [0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to indicate the second resource region based on 5-bit punctured channel indication information in U-SGI; thus offering more stable and high-throughput connectivity by allowing devices to effectively utilize bandwidth even in the face of band interference.
Regarding claim 8:
Verma in view of Chen discloses all features of claim 6.
Verma does not, but Chen further discloses the U-SIG field is equal in a whole band or a 80MHz band (HT-SIG id modified to support RU allocations in different 80 MHz portions of wireless channel [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to design U-SIG field is equal to whole band or 80 MHz; thus providing flexibility and increasing spectral efficiency of wireless channel (Chen [0061]).
Regarding claim 9:
Verma discloses all features of claim 5.
Verma does not further discloses information indicating the second resource region is included in an extremely high throughput-SIGNAL (EHT-SIG) field of the TB PPDU; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Chen’s disclosure as below.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor, teaches information indicating the second resource region is included in an extremely high throughput-SIGNAL (EHT-SIG) field of the TB PPDU (resource units {RSs} allocation information are signaled in EHT-SIG of PPDU [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to indicate the second resource region being included in an extremely high throughput-SIGNAL (EHT-SIG) field of the TB PPDU; thus providing flexibility and increasing spectral efficiency of wireless channel (Chen [0061]).
Regarding claim 10:
Verma in view of Chen discloses all features of claim 9.
Verma does not, while Chen further discloses the second resource region is indicated based on 5-bit punctured channel indication information in the EHT-SIG field (bandwidth, e.g., second resource region, is included in EHT-SIG-A field with 5-bit field for indicating punctured channels and puncturing mode [0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to indicate the second resource region based on 5-bit punctured channel indication information in the EHT-SIG field; thus providing flexibility and increasing spectral efficiency of wireless channel (Chen [0061]).
Regarding claim 11:
Verma in view of Chen discloses all features of claim 9.
Verma does not, while Chen further discloses the EHT-SIG field is repeated in a unit of a 20MHz band (EHT-SIG is duplicated in each of component 20 MHz subchannels [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to repeat the EHT-SIG field in a unit of a 20MHz band; thus allowing efficient demodulating and decoding of data payload.
Regarding claim 12:
Verma in view of Chen discloses all features of claim 9.
Verma further discloses the EHT-SIG field further includes information on at least one of resource unit (RU) allocation, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), a number of spatial streams, or a coding type applied to the TB PPDU (EHT-SIG includes RU allocation [0059, lines 7-12]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to include such information in EHT-SIG; thus providing information for demodulating and decoding of data payload.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights