DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 12/19/2023, in which claims 1-11, and 13 are pending and ready for examination.
Claims 12 and 14-15 have been cancelled.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated in applicant admitted Non-Patent literature IEEE 802.11-21/0131r7 (hereinafter,”IEEE-0131r7”).
In response to claim 1,
IEEE-0131r7 teaches a method of performing communication by a first station (STA) in a wireless LAN system, the method comprising (page 4, paragraph 1, STA is equated to a first station):
receiving, from a second STA, a frame including first information related to a first channel width of less than or equal to a first maximum bandwidth and second information related to a second channel width of less than or equal to a second maximum bandwidth (page 6, paragraph 3, EHT AP is equated to a first station, pages 3-4, section “9.2.4.6a.x EHT OM Control (#2004)”, Table xxx, column “channel width subfield in OM subfield” this column is equated to represent a first maximum bandwidth as using a first channel width of less than or equal to a first maximum bandwidth, Table xxx, column “channel width subfield in OM subfield” the value of this column is equated to represent a first information related to a first channel width of less than or equal to a first maximum bandwidth, column “channel Width Extension subfield in EHT OM Control subfield” is interpreted to represent second maximum bandwidth, and the value on this column is interpreted to represent a second information related to a second channel width of less than or equal to a second maximum bandwidth); and
based on the first information, or the first information and the second information, performing communication (page 6, paragraph 3, transmitting a frame by a STA explicitly teaches this limitation),
wherein a value of the first information based on combination of the first information and the second information indicating the second maximum bandwidth is equal to a value of the first information based on the first information indicating the first maximum bandwidth (Table xxx, column, “channel width subfield in OM subfield” and “column, “Chennel width Extension subfield in EHT OM Control subfield”, the combination of values of these two columns and in the row represents a value of the first information based on combination of the first information and the second information indicating the second maximum bandwidth is equal to a value of the first information based on the first information indicating the first maximum bandwidth).
In response to claim 3,
IEEE-0131r7 teaches wherein: the first information is indicated by a Channel Width subfield in the OM (Operating Mode) control subfield, and the second information is indicated by a Channel Width Extension subfield in an Extremely High Throughput (EHT) OM control subfield (Table xxx, column,” “Chennel width subfield in OM subfield” is equated to the first information is indicated by a Channel Width subfield in the OM (Operating Mode) control subfield channel width subfield in OM subfield” and column, “Chennel width Extension subfield in EHT OM Control subfield” is equated to the second information is indicated by a Channel Width Extension subfield in an Extremely High Throughput (EHT) OM control subfield ).
In response to claim 6,
IEEE-0131r7 teaches wherein: a maximum number of spatial streams corresponding to the first channel width less than or equal to the first maximum bandwidth is obtained through the OM control field (page 4, paragraph 2, 80 MHz is equated to a maximum number of spatial streams corresponding to the first channel, Table xxx, column, “Chennel width subfield in OM subfield”, “0” on the third row of this column that represent “primary 80 MHz” explicitly teaches a maximum number of spatial streams corresponding to the first channel width less than or equal to the first maximum bandwidth is obtained through the OM control field).
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.
Claim 11 is 35 U.S.C 103 (a) as being anticipated by Non-Patent literature IEEE 802.11-21/0131r7 (hereinafter,”IEEE-0131r7”) in view of Vaidya et al. (hereinafter, “Vaidya”; 20220095315).
In response to claim 11,
IEEE-0131r7 teaches receive, from a second STA through the at least one transceiver, a frame including first information related to a first channel width of less than or equal to a first maximum bandwidth and second information related to a second channel width of less than or equal to a second maximum bandwidth; and based on the first information, or the first information and the second information, perform communication, wherein a value of the first information based on combination of the first information and the second information indicating the second maximum bandwidth is equal to a value of the first information based on the first information indicating the first maximum bandwidth (these limitations are identical to claim 1, therefore, these limitations are rejected as claim 1).
IEEE-0131r7 does not teach explicitly about a first station (STA) performing communication in a wireless LAN system, the first STA comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver.
Vaidya in view IEEE-0131r7 teaches of a first station (STA) performing communication in a wireless LAN system, the first STA comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (paragraph 35, non-AP is equated to a first station, paragraph 33 teaches using a transceiver and paragraph 35 teaches using a memory and a processor for the claimed functionality):
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE-0131r7 for using a first station (STA) performing communication in a wireless LAN system, the first STA comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver as taught by Vaidya because it would allow using apriority access procedure for a UE using a CSMA/CD protocol.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
Claims 2, 4-5 and 7-10 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.
As for independent claim 13, this claim is allowed, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein based on the operating channel width supported by the second STA being a first maximum bandwidth, a channel width subfield in an operating mode (OM) control subfield is set to a first value and a channel width extension subfield in an extremely high throughput (EHT) OM control subfield is set to a second value, and wherein based on the operating channel width supported by the second STA being a second maximum bandwidth, the channel width subfield is set to the first value, and the channel width extension subfield is set to the third value.”
The closet prior art in the record Non-Patent literature IEEE 802.11-21/0131r7 teaches on Table xxx, column “channel width subfield in OM subfield” and on “channel Width Extension subfield in EHT OM Control subfield” about using different values to represent different bandwidth, but it fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 2, this claim is allowed, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein a value of the first information based on the combination of the first information and the second information indicating the second maximum bandwidth and a value of the first information based on the first information alone indicating the first maximum bandwidth are 3.”
The closet prior art in the record Non-Patent literature IEEE 802.11-21/0131r7 teaches on Table xxx, column “channel width subfield in OM subfield” and on “channel Width Extension subfield in EHT OM Control subfield” about using different values to represent different bandwidth, but it fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 4, this claim is allowed, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein: based on the channel width subfield including a first value and the channel width extension subfield including a second value, the first maximum bandwidth is indicated by a combination of the channel width subfield and the channel width extension subfield, and based on the channel width subfield including the first value and the channel width extension subfield including the third value, the second maximum bandwidth is indicated by a combination of the channel width subfield and the channel width extension subfield.”
The closet prior art in the record Non-Patent literature IEEE 802.11-21/0131r7 teaches on Table xxx, column “channel width subfield in OM subfield” and on “channel Width Extension subfield in EHT OM Control subfield” about using different values to represent different bandwidth, but it fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claim 5 is objected because it depends on claim 4.
As for dependent claim 7, this claim is allowed, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein: the first maximum bandwidth is a maximum bandwidth supported for a first type STA, and the second maximum bandwidth is a maximum bandwidth supported for a second type STA.”
The closet prior art in the record Non-Patent literature IEEE 802.11-21/0131r7 teaches on Table xxx, column “channel width subfield in OM subfield” and on “channel Width Extension subfield in EHT OM Control subfield” about using different values to represent different bandwidth, but it fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 8, this claim is allowed, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein: the first maximum bandwidth is 160 MHz, and the second maximum bandwidth is 320 MHz.”
The closet prior art in the record Non-Patent literature IEEE 802.11-21/0131r7 teaches on Table xxx, column “channel width subfield in OM subfield” and on “channel Width Extension subfield in EHT OM Control subfield” about using different values to represent different bandwidth, but it fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claims 9-10 are objected because these claims depend on claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20190116513……………….paragraphs 53-57.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466