DETAILED ACTION
This office action response the amendment application on 4/07/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are presented for examination.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on April 07, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-13, 16-20 have been amended. Claims 2, 7-8, 11-20, 23-28, and 32 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 7, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, pp. 4–5) that Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0034829 A1) fails to disclose or suggest the limitation reciting “the parameter is defined as an extra pilot index shifting associated with a distributed resource unit (dRU),” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9. Specifically, Applicant contends that Yang merely discloses pilot sequence generation and pilot allocation, but does not disclose an “extra pilot index shifting” associated with a distributed resource unit (dRU). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At the outset, the Examiner notes that during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification, rather than the narrow interpretation advanced by Applicant. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nothing in the pending claims expressly limits the claimed “extra pilot index shifting” to a particular mathematical operation, proprietary algorithm, or implementation beyond a parameter that defines an additional shift of pilot indices associated with a resource unit. Accordingly, the claim language reasonably encompasses any parameter that adjusts, offsets, or shifts pilot index locations relative to an initial or baseline pilot arrangement associated with a resource unit.
Applicant’s argument improperly imports limitations from the Specification into the claims by requiring a particular implementation of the claimed “extra” shifting. However, it is well established that limitations from the Specification may not be read into the claims. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require that the parameter define an extra pilot index shifting associated with a distributed resource unit, and Yang expressly teaches this functionality.
More particularly, Yang discloses that a tone may alternatively be referred to as a subcarrier (¶0051), thereby establishing that pilot tone positions correspond directly to pilot indices within the OFDM resource grid. Yang further explains that a resource unit (RU) comprises a set of wireless resources allocated for transmission and that pilot tones are organized and assigned within each RU (¶0063). Thus, Yang explicitly associates pilot tone locations with individual resource units.
Furthermore, Yang teaches that pilot signals are generated within one or more resource units based on pilot tone locations, and that the pilot generation process includes shifting the base pilot sequence across the transmission bandwidth (¶0139). Importantly, Yang expressly states that the procedure of shifting the base pilot sequence is applicable across resource units, thereby disclosing that pilot shifting is performed in association with the resource units themselves rather than independently of them.
Applicant further overlooks Yang’s explicit disclosure in paragraph 0152, which states that the pilot allocation component determines pilot tone locations associated with the resource units, determines a pilot sequence corresponding to those pilot locations, and determines the pilot sequence by shifting an initial pilot sequence based on a data symbol index. The Examiner notes that shifting an initial pilot sequence necessarily changes the pilot index locations relative to the original pilot allocation, thereby constituting an additional pilot index shift under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Additionally, paragraph 0152 discloses that pilot tone location sets are adjusted by offsets of −512 and +512 relative to initial pilot tone location sets for multiple resource units. These offsets represent explicit positional shifts of pilot tone indices from their original locations. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these offsets define parameters specifying additional pilot index shifts associated with the respective resource units. The claims do not require that the parameter be expressly labeled “extra pilot index shifting”; rather, the functional relationship between the parameter and the shifted pilot indices is sufficient. Patentability cannot rest solely on the absence of identical terminology when the prior art discloses the same functional subject matter. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, Applicant appears to distinguish between the claimed “extra pilot index shifting” and Yang’s disclosed pilot sequence shifting based primarily on nomenclature. Such a distinction is not persuasive because anticipation does not require that the prior art use identical language as the claims. Rather, anticipation exists when a single reference discloses every claim limitation, either expressly or inherently, arranged as required by the claim. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Here, Yang expressly teaches resource-unit-based pilot allocation, pilot tone locations associated with resource units, shifting of pilot sequences, and pilot location offsets applied to resource units. Collectively, these disclosures describe a parameter defining an additional pilot index shift associated with a resource unit, which reasonably reads on the claimed limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, Applicant has not identified any structural or functional distinction between the claimed “parameter defined as an extra pilot index shifting associated with a distributed resource unit (dRU)” and Yang’s disclosed pilot sequence shifting and pilot location offset mechanisms associated with resource units. Because Yang expressly discloses each limitation of independent claims 1 and 9 arranged as claimed, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 is maintained.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Yang et al. is maintained.
Thus, Yang et al. anticipated and meets the scope of the claimed limitation as currently presented.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170034829 A1), (“D1”, hereinafter),
As per Claim 1, D1 discloses a device, the device ([see, [0008], a wireless device (e.g., an access point) for wireless communication]) comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage ([see, [0169], and Fig. 11, include a processor 1104 with Memory 1106]), the processing circuitry configured to:
determine a plurality of pilot tones across a first frequency resource ([see, [0009, 0015], determining a number of usable tones per resource unit based on the determined communication bandwidth of the frequency resource]);
adjust the plurality of pilot tones with a first pilot offset adjustment parameter ([see, [0009-0010, 0083], the first plurality of pilot tone location sets may be based on an initial plurality of pilot tone location sets adjusted by a first offset of −512]), wherein parameter is defined as an extra pilot index shifting associated with a distributed resource unit (dRU) ([see, [0051, 0152], the pilot sequence is determined by shifting an initial pilot sequence based on a data symbol index. On [0052-0069] Fig. 2, Fig. 3 to Fig. 4, describes a tone may alternatively be referred to as a subcarrier]);
cause to send a frame to a first station (STA) device using the adjusted plurality of pilot tones ([see, [0055, 0058, 0140], and Fig. 2, wherein the STA 206, for example, may transmit packets to the AP 202 in the form of a frame 252 and vice versa, the STA 206) may receive a frame via a 20 MHz wireless channel, and the AP may allocate one or more resource units to other STAs]).
As per Claim 6, is the non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 6 is anticipated by CRM being performed by the apparatus above and therefore is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
As per Claims 3, 8, D1 further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to change the first pilot offset adjustment parameter as a first interval associated with resource units (RUs) ([see, [0069], the STA 210 may be allocated the middle 26-tone RU, and the STA 212 may be allocated the second 106-tone RU in the third row. In another aspect, the entire 20 MHz bandwidth need not be allocated. Gaps in RU allocation may be acceptable, and on [0083], the first plurality of pilot tone location sets may be based on an initial plurality of pilot tone location sets adjusted by a first offset of −512]).
As per Claim 4, D1 discloses the device of claim 1, and D1 further discloses further comprising a transceiver configured to transmit and receive wireless signals ([see, [0147], transmitter 810 is configured to transmit signals generated by other components of the device]).
As per Claim 5, D1 discloses the device of claim 4, and D1 further discloses further comprising an antenna coupled to the transceiver to cause to send the frame ([see, [149], transmitter 810 is configured to transmit signals generated by other components of the device, and wherein the transmitter 812 may utilize a single antenna 816 or a set of antennas to send the frame]).
As per Claim 9, D1 discloses a method comprising:
determining, by one of more processors, a plurality of pilot tones across a first frequency resource ([see, [0009, 0015], determining a number of usable tones per resource unit based on the determined communication bandwidth of the frequency resource]);
adjusting the plurality of pilot tones with a first pilot offset adjustment parameter ([see, [0009-0010, 0083], the first plurality of pilot tone location sets may be based on an initial plurality of pilot tone location sets adjusted by a first offset of −512]); wherein parameter is defined as an extra pilot index shifting associated with a distributed resource unit (dRU) ([see, [0051, 0152], the pilot sequence is determined by shifting an initial pilot sequence based on a data symbol index. On [0052], describes a tone may alternatively be referred to as a subcarrier]);
causing to send a frame to a first station device using the adjusted plurality of pilot tones ([see, [0055, 0058, 0140], and Fig. 2, wherein the STA 206, for example, may transmit packets to the AP 202 in the form of a frame 252 and vice versa, the STA 206) may receive a frame via a 20 MHz wireless channel, and the AP may allocate one or more resource units to other STAs]).
As per Claim 10, D1 discloses the method of claim 9, and D1 further discloses wherein the first pilot offset adjustment parameter is defined as an extra pilot index shifting associated with a distributed resource unit (dRU) ([see, [0057-0058], remaining tones—guard tones, DC tones—may be considered “unusable “ as extra pilot index disclosed]).
As per Claim 11, D1 discloses method of claim 9, and D1 further discloses further comprising changing the first pilot offset adjustment parameter at a first interval associated with resource units (RUs) ([see, [0069], the STA 210 may be allocated the middle 26-tone RU, and the STA 212 may be allocated the second 106-tone RU in the third row. In another aspect, the entire 20 MHz bandwidth need not be allocated. Gaps in RU allocation may be acceptable, and on [0083], the first plurality of pilot tone location sets may be based on an initial plurality of pilot tone location sets adjusted by a first offset of −512]).
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU D BELETE whose telephone number is (571)272-3478. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm, Alt. Friday, and EDT.
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, JEONG, MOO R. can be reached on (571) 272-9617. 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.
/BERHANU D BELETE/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/WUTCHUNG CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights