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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 11/29/23, including preliminary amendments filed on 11/29/23, has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18, 21, 23-25 are pending.
Claims 4, 13, 19-20, and 22 have been canceled.
Claims 23-25 have been added.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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)(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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 21, 24 and 10-12, 14-16, 18, 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lou (US 20240106585 A1, see also 63194819).
Regarding claim 1, Lou discloses a communication method, performed by a transmitter that supports multi-link communication [fig. 1A, par. 0060, 67, 102 (fig. 1A, par. 0049, 57, 91 of ‘819)], the communication method comprising:
determining a first message frame [fig. 3], wherein the first message frame comprises a multi-link information element (Spatial Reuse subfields [fig. 3, par. 0107, 111 (par. 0095, 99)]), and the multi-link information element comprises a first identifier for identifying a support capability of the transmitter for receiving information of parameterized spatial reuse (PSR)-based spatial reuse (SR) (Spatial Reuse 1, 2, 3, 4 [fig. 3, par. 0104, 111, fig. 17, 20-25 (par. 0092, 99)]); and
transmitting the first message frame (AP transmits the trigger frame [fig. 2, par. 0103, 111 (par. 0095, 99)]).
Regarding claim 10, it substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the receiver, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 21, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lou further discloses an electronic device [fig. 1B, 1C no. 102, 160], comprising a memory [fig. 1B no. 130, 132], a processor [fig. 1B no. 118], and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor [fig. 1D, 32-34, where although ‘819 does not show the latter figures, its spec. describes functionality performed by a program].
Regarding claim 23, it is substantially similar to claim 10, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lou further discloses an electronic device [fig. 1B, 1C no. 102, 160], comprising a memory [fig. 1B no. 130, 132], a processor [fig. 1B no. 118], and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor [fig. 1D, 32-34, where although ‘819 does not show the latter figures, its spec. describes functionality performed by a program].
Regarding claim 24, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lou further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program [fig. 1B no. 130, 132, 1C no. 102, 160].
Regarding claim 25, it is substantially similar to claim 10, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lou further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program [fig. 1B no. 130, 132, 1C no. 102, 160].
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lou discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Lou further discloses:
wherein the multi-link information element further comprises a second identifier for identifying a support capability of the transmitter for transmitting the information of the PSR-based SR (Updated SR fields (i.e., second ID) [par. 0111]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Lou discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Lou further discloses:
wherein at least one of the first identifier and the second identifier is comprised in a control field or a common information field of the multi-link information element, or
at least one of the first identifier and the second identifier is comprised in a per-STA profile field of the multi-link information element (n (i.e., per-STA profile field) [fig. 3, 17, 20-25]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Lou discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Lou further discloses:
wherein the first message frame comprises an extremely high throughput physical (PHY) capability information element (Trigger frames contain info for EHT stations (i.e., capability info) [par. 0103]);
wherein the extremely high throughput PHY capability information element comprises a second identifier for identifying a support capability of the transmitter for transmitting the information of the PSR-based SR (Trigger frames contain SR info (i.e., second ID) [par. 0104, 107, 111]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Lou discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Lou further discloses:
wherein the transmitter is an access point that supports the multi-link communication [fig. 2 no. 205], wherein the communication method further comprises:
transmitting a second message frame, wherein the second message frame comprises information on a SR parameter set [fig. 3, 17, 20-25].
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lou discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Lou further discloses:
wherein the second message frame comprises a multi-link information element [fig. 3, 17, 20-25];
wherein the information on the SR parameter set is comprised in a control information field, a common information field, or a per-STA profile field of the multi-link information element (n (i.e., per-STA profile field) [fig. 3, 17, 20-25]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Lou discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Lou further discloses:
wherein an order of the information on the SR parameter set in the second message frame is set to be compatible with high-efficiency wireless communication [tbl. 18, par. 0103].
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 (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 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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, and further in view of Patil (US 20210014911 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lou discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Lou discloses wherein the second message frame comprises; wherein the information on the SR parameter set, as discussed above, Lou does not explicitly disclose a reduced neighbor report element (RNRE); is comprised in the RNRE. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Patil.
In the same field of endeavor, Patil discloses:
a reduced neighbor report element (RNRE) [par. 0012];
is comprised in the RNRE [par. 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou with Patil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of improving data throughput [Patil par. 0004].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465