DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/22/2024, 04/09/2024, and 08/12/2024 were filed after the mailing date of the application on 02/22/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saad et al. (US 2024/0243862), hereinafter Saad.
Regarding Claim 1, Saad teaches: An operating method of a first apparatus in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system: “the Sharing AP may need to trigger the Shared APs to send NDPAs and NDPs to the STAs in the MAP coordinating group” (Saad ¶ 0125) where, from the applicant’s specification, the operation of the first apparatus of independent claim 1 is a Shared AP of Saad, the operating method comprising: receiving a multiple access point (MAP) network frame from a second apparatus: “The Sharing AP may trigger the MAP sounding procedure by using a MAP Trigger frame or a JOINT NDPA frame” (Saad ¶ 0125); identifying, from the MAP network frame, joint null data packet (NDP) transmission for MAP sounding: “an MAP NDPA/Joint NDPA frame is transmitted from the sharing AP to trigger concurrent NDP transmissions from shared APs (as shown in FIG. 32). Note when the MAP NDPA/Joint NDPA frame is used in the procedure, the non-AP STAs may process the MAP NDPA/Joint NDPA/NDP sequence as a conventional sounding procedure. The MAP architecture may allow the communication between any non-AP STAs with any AP or sharing AP in the MAP set” (Saad ¶ 0257) and first interleaved subcarriers according to the joint NDP transmission: “The Implicit Sounding NDP may be sent sequentially in different times in the entire bandwidth, jointly in different frequency subchannels, jointly in the entire bandwidth but with different orthogonal codes, or jointly in the entire bandwidth with different subcarrier groups (Interleaved NDP). The Trigger Dependent Information subfield 3026 may signal more information specific to each Trigger NDPA type and/or subtype. In one example, in Interleaved NDP, we may indicate how many subcarriers groups will be used and the subcarrier list in each subcarrier group” (Saad ¶ 0226-0227); and based on the joint NDP transmission, transmitting a first NDP to a third apparatus by using the first interleaved subcarriers: “The bandwidth allocation may be parsed differently based on the type of the Trigger NDPA which may be indicated in the Type field or in the Trigger Type subfield of the Special STA Info field. In one example, in case of Interleaved NDP, the Bandwidth Allocation subfield may indicate the subcarrier groups allocated to each STA” (Saad ¶ 0235) wherein the third apparatus is a STA and in the example where the subcarrier groups are allocated to each STA, the first interleaved subcarrier group would be allocated to at least one STA.
Regarding Claim 3, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the joint NDP transmission and the first interleaved subcarriers comprises, in response to a first value of an MAP mode field of the MAP network frame, the first value indicating an MAP sounding mode: “The MAP Trigger Subtype field may be used to carry MAP Trigger frame subtypes. For example, there may be MAP basic trigger, MAP NDP trigger (this may be used for MAP sounding, MAP NDP feedback etc.) . . . In one method, the MAP Trigger Subtype may be combined and indicated in Trigger Type subfield in Common Info field” (Saad ¶ 0248), identifying that the joint NDP transmission is indicated, based on a second value of an NDP transmission type subfield of a common information field of the MAP network frame: “The Trigger Subtype subfield 3024 may provide more information related to the Trigger Type 3010 such as Sequential NDP, Joint NDP with Orthogonal Codes, Interleaved NDP, etc” (Saad ¶ 0226).
Regarding Claim 6, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 1, wherein the MAP network frame includes an interleaved subcarrier indication subfield indicating the first interleaved subcarriers: “The Implicit Sounding NDP may be sent sequentially in different times in the entire bandwidth, jointly in different frequency subchannels, jointly in the entire bandwidth but with different orthogonal codes, or jointly in the entire bandwidth with different subcarrier groups (Interleaved NDP). The Trigger Dependent Information subfield 3026 may signal more information specific to each Trigger NDPA type and/or subtype. In one example, in Interleaved NDP, we may indicate how many subcarriers groups will be used and the subcarrier list in each subcarrier group” (Saad ¶ 0226-0227).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Cherian et al. (US 2018/0206274), hereinafter Cherian.
Regarding Claim 2, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 1.
Saad does not teach: the transmitting of the first NDP is simultaneously performed with transmitting of a second NDP from the second apparatus to the third apparatus through second interleaved subcarriers.
Regarding Claim 2, Cherian teaches: the transmitting of the first NDP is simultaneously performed with transmitting of a second NDP from the second apparatus to the third apparatus through second interleaved subcarriers: “the APs 104a-b may simultaneously transmit null data packet (NDP) frames. In some aspects, the NDP frames from each AP may be separated in frequency and/or spatial domain using interleaving tones and/or a Q-Matrix” (Cherian ¶ 0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Cherian for the purpose of meeting increased capacity demands required by wireless network applications. According to Cherian: “In order to satisfy the bandwidth and capacity requirements users require, improvements in the ability of a wireless medium to carry larger and larger amounts of data are needed” (Cherian ¶ 0004).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad as applied to claim above in further view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0037275), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 4, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 3.
Saad does not teach: the identifying of the joint NDP transmission and the first interleaved subcarriers further comprises, in response to the second value of the NDP transmission type subfield, the second value indicating the joint NDP transmission, identifying that the first interleaved subcarriers are indicated, based on a third value of an interleaved subcarrier indication subfield of an access point (AP) information field corresponding to the first apparatus from among a plurality of AP information fields of the MAP network frame.
Regarding Claim 4, Liu teaches: the identifying of the joint NDP transmission and the first interleaved subcarriers further comprises, in response to the second value of the NDP transmission type subfield, the second value indicating the joint NDP transmission: “A sounding synchronization indication may be included in the sound announcement frame or the sounding trigger frame. At 102, the sounding APs simultaneously send a joint sounding packet to multiple STAs, where the packet includes training signals for the AP antennas that will participate in the subsequent joint data transmission” (Liu ¶ 0033), identifying that the first interleaved subcarriers are indicated, based on a third value of an interleaved subcarrier indication subfield of an access point (AP) information field corresponding to the first apparatus from among a plurality of AP information fields of the MAP network frame: “In some other embodiments, the sounding APs simultaneously or synchronously transmit a joint sounding packet which includes subcarrier-interleaved LTFs, and each sounding AP transmits LTFs on its allocated subcarriers. In this manner, the total number of LTFs may only need to be equal to or greater than the maximum number of antennas in an individual sounding AP among all the sounding APs. FIG. 7 illustrates the configuration of an exemplary joint sounding packet 710 including subcarrier-interleaved LTFs in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The antennas of the sounding AP2 and AP3 can be referred by their local antenna indices within their corresponding APs, e.g., 1˜N2 and 1˜N3, respectively” (Liu ¶ 0042).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu Fig. 7
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Liu for the purpose of increasing transmission efficiency and throughput within a network. According to Liu: “To further increase transmission efficiency and throughput and to enhance network performance, it is desirable to use multiple access points (APs) to simultaneously and jointly transmit (or receive) a data packet to (or from) multiple stations (STAs)” (Liu ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 5, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 1.
Saad does not teach: the first interleaved subcarriers are determined based on at least one of a number of apparatuses participating in the MAP sounding in which the first and second apparatuses are included, a bandwidth assigned to the transmitting of the first NDP, and a type of the first NDP.
Regarding Claim 5, Liu teaches: the first interleaved subcarriers are determined based on at least one of a number of apparatuses participating in the MAP sounding in which the first and second apparatuses are included, a bandwidth assigned to the transmitting of the first NDP, and a type of the first NDP: “Embodiments of the present disclosure are described in detail with reference to a system with two sounding APs. Both the schemes of using joint stacked LTFs and using subcarrier-interleaved LTFs can be generalized to systems with any number of sounding APs, e.g., including all the APs to be used in a transmission opportunity (TXOP) . . . For the scheme using subcarrier-interleaved LTFs, the generalization can be achieved by directly allocating the subcarriers among all the sounding APs of the TXOP and making the number of subcarrier-interleaved LTFs as the maximum number of antennas equipped by the sounding APs” (Liu ¶ 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Liu for the purpose of increasing transmission efficiency and throughput within a network. According to Liu: “To further increase transmission efficiency and throughput and to enhance network performance, it is desirable to use multiple access points (APs) to simultaneously and jointly transmit (or receive) a data packet to (or from) multiple stations (STAs)” (Liu ¶ 0005).
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad as applied to claim 6 above in further view of Nakano et al. (US 2024/0146476), hereinafter Nakano.
Regarding Claim 7, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 6.
Saad does not teach: wherein the interleaved subcarrier indication subfield includes a starting offset subfield indicating a starting subcarrier of the first interleaved subcarriers and an increment subfield indicating a unit distance of the first interleaved subcarriers.
Regarding Claim 7, Nakano teaches: the interleaved subcarrier indication subfield includes a starting offset subfield indicating a starting subcarrier of the first interleaved subcarriers and an increment subfield indicating a unit distance of the first interleaved subcarriers: “For example, in the coordinated transmission, a Master AP may transmit, to the Slave APs, the MAP Trigger (FIG. 1) that includes an offset value (i.e., waveform-conversion parameter). Meanwhile, the subcarrier interval of the EHT-STF may be indicated from the Master AP to the Slave APs or may be defined in the standard, for example . . . in FIG. 9, offset=0 is configured for Slave AP 1, offset=+1 is configured for Slave AP 2, and the offset=−1 is configured for Slave AP 1. This configuration of the offsets makes the subcarriers to which the EHT-LTFs of each of the Slave APs are assigned different from each other, as illustrated in FIG. 9. That is, in FIG. 9, signal waveforms of the EHT-STFs in the frequency domain transmitted by each of the Slave APs are different from each other . . . For example, offset intervals to be configured for the Slave APs may be configured to be wider than those of when the offset intervals are, for example, 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, and so forth (i.e., when shifted by one subcarrier). Further, the offset values may be configured to a value obtained by rounding down “Subcarrier interval common in Slave APs/(Slave AP number).” In one example, when the subcarrier interval common in the Slave APs is eight subcarriers and the Slave AP number is three, the offset values become 0, 2, and −2” (Nakano ¶ 0106 and 0109 and 0114).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nakano Fig. 9
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Nakano for the purpose of reducing variation in received power in EHT-STFs. According to Nakano: “according to Method 3, in the STA (e.g., radio communication apparatus 200), it is possible to reduce the variation in received power in the EHT-STFs transmitted from a plurality of Slave APs and thus to improve the AGC performance” (Nakano ¶ 0109).
Regarding Claim 8, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 7.
Saad does not teach: each of the starting offset subfield and the increment subfield is defined for each NDP type with respect to the first NDP.
Regarding Claim 8, Nakano teaches: each of the starting offset subfield and the increment subfield is defined for each NDP type with respect to the first NDP: See Fig. 9 above where EHT-STF and EHT-LTF assignments are defined with respect to the first NDP in AP 1: ““Method 3” indicates characteristics in a case of a format in which the EHT-STF and the EHT-LTF are frequency-divided based on Method 3 described above” (Nakano ¶ 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Nakano for the purpose of reducing variation in received power in EHT-STFs. According to Nakano: “according to Method 3, in the STA (e.g., radio communication apparatus 200), it is possible to reduce the variation in received power in the EHT-STFs transmitted from a plurality of Slave APs and thus to improve the AGC performance” (Nakano ¶ 0109).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad as applied to claim 6 above in further view of Park et al. (US 2022/0140987), hereinafter Park.
Regarding Claim 9, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 6.
Saad does not teach: the interleaved subcarrier indication subfield indicates a subcarrier pattern in accordance with the first interleaved subcarriers from among a plurality of subcarrier patterns.
Regarding Claim 9, Park teaches: the interleaved subcarrier indication subfield indicates a subcarrier pattern in accordance with the first interleaved subcarriers from among a plurality of subcarrier patterns: “The sharing AP (e.g., master AP) may transmit a Multi-AP (MAP) trigger frame. Subcarrier pattern information may be included in the MAP trigger frame. For example, the MAP trigger frame may include information related to a method of multi-AP transmission (e.g., distributed MIMO, C-OFDMA, coordinated beamforming, coordinated spatial reuse, etc.)” (Park ¶ 0239).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Park for the purpose of efficiently transmitting LTF symbols. According to Park: “in the multi-AP environment in which a plurality of slave APs exist, the master AP can allocate an LTF subcarrier pattern applied to a stream transmitted by the slave APs, so that the plurality of slave APs can efficiently transmit LTF symbols” (Park ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 10, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 9.
Saad does not teach: the plurality of subcarrier patterns are predetermined between the first apparatus and the second apparatus according to a number of apparatuses taking part in the MAP sounding in which the first and second apparatuses are included and a bandwidth assigned to the transmitting of the first NDP.
Regarding Claim 10, Park teaches: the plurality of subcarrier patterns are predetermined between the first apparatus and the second apparatus according to a number of apparatuses taking part in the MAP sounding in which the first and second apparatuses are included and a bandwidth assigned to the transmitting of the first NDP: “The processor is configured to: determine a long training field (LTF) subcarrier pattern for each of a plurality of streams, wherein the LTF symbols are used for at least one of first to third streams, wherein a number of the LTF symbols is determined based on a number of antennas of a shared AP having a largest number of antennas among a plurality of shared APs related to the sharing AP, and wherein the first to third streams are assigned with different subcarrier patterns; and transmit information related to the LTF subcarrier pattern” (Park ¶ 0311), or in other words, Park describes determining the subcarrier pattern based upon the number of antenna among slave APs, thus predetermining the subcarrier patterns between first and second apparatuses according to the number of apparatuses taking part in MAP sounding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Park for the purpose of efficiently transmitting LTF symbols. According to Park: “in the multi-AP environment in which a plurality of slave APs exist, the master AP can allocate an LTF subcarrier pattern applied to a stream transmitted by the slave APs, so that the plurality of slave APs can efficiently transmit LTF symbols” (Park ¶ 0005).
Claims 12-15, 18, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad in further view of Park.
Regarding Claim 12, Saad teaches: An operating method of a first apparatus in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the operating method comprising: selecting second apparatuses participating in multiple access point (MAP) sounding as access points (APs) and third apparatuses taking part in the MAP sounding as stations (STAs): “the Sharing AP may need to trigger the Shared APs to send NDPAs and NDPs to the STAs in the MAP coordinating group” (Saad ¶ 0125); selecting a null data packet (NDP) transmission method for the MAP sounding as joint NDP transmission: “The sharing or the leading AP 3202, may transmit a MAP Trigger/JOINT NDPA frame 3210. This frame may be used to trigger NDP frames transmissions from multiple APs 3204. Meanwhile, the MAP Trigger frame/NDPA 3210 may carry information for the STAs 3206 to perform sounding measurement and report” (Saad ¶ 0243); and transmitting the MAP network frame to the second apparatuses and the third apparatuses: “The bandwidth allocation may be parsed differently based on the type of the Trigger NDPA which may be indicated in the Type field or in the Trigger Type subfield of the Special STA Info field. In one example, in case of Interleaved NDP, the Bandwidth Allocation subfield may indicate the subcarrier groups allocated to each STA” (Saad ¶ 0235).
Saad does not teach: determining, for each second apparatus, interleaved subcarriers used for transmitting of an NDP; generating an MAP network frame indicating the second apparatuses, the third apparatuses, the joint NDP transmission, and the interleaved subcarriers corresponding to each of the second apparatuses.
Regarding Claim 12, Park teaches; determining, for each second apparatus, interleaved subcarriers used for transmitting of an NDP: “The sharing AP may determine a subcarrier pattern. When multiple streams are included in one symbol, the sharing AP may allocate different subcarrier pattern(s) (e.g., LTF tone set) to each stream in order to distinguish each stream. The subcarrier pattern may have the same meaning as the LTF tone set. The subcarrier pattern may denote a set of subcarriers on which energy is carried and transmitted among subcarriers included in the LTF symbol. A subcarrier on which no energy is loaded, that is, not allocated as the subcarrier pattern, may be nulled and transmitted. The sharing AP may allocate which subcarrier of the LTF symbol included in the MAP NDP PPDU to transmit energy to the slave APs. That is, the sharing AP may allocate the subcarrier pattern of the LTF symbol of the MAP NDP PPDU to the slave APs. The sharing AP may allocate subcarrier patterns for each stream to the slave APs, respectively” (Park ¶ 0240); generating an MAP network frame indicating the second apparatuses, the third apparatuses, the joint NDP transmission, and the interleaved subcarriers corresponding to each of the second apparatuses: “The subcarrier pattern allocation information may be transmitted by being included in the MAP trigger frame . . . The master AP may transmit a signal notifying the start of the channel estimation procedure to the slave APs (e.g., a slave AP-1, a slave AP-2, and a slave AP-3) to start the channel estimation procedure between the slave APs and the receiving STAs. For example, the master AP may transmit a multi AP transmission (MAP) trigger frame to notify the slave APs of the start of the channel estimation procedure. For example, the MAP trigger frame may include information related to the method of multi-AP transmission (e.g., distributed MIMO, C-OFDMA, coordinated beamforming, coordinated spatial reuse, etc.) ” (Park ¶ 0240 and 0256).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Park for the purpose of efficiently transmitting LTF symbols. According to Park: “in the multi-AP environment in which a plurality of slave APs exist, the master AP can allocate an LTF subcarrier pattern applied to a stream transmitted by the slave APs, so that the plurality of slave APs can efficiently transmit LTF symbols” (Park ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 13, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 12, wherein the selecting the NDP transmission method as the joint NDP transmission comprises: determining a bandwidth for the MAP sounding: “all STA's involved in MU-MIMO transmission with the AP must use the same channel or band, this limits the operating bandwidth to the smallest channel bandwidth that is supported by the STA's which are included in the MU-MIMO transmission with the AP” (Saad ¶ 0099); and determining a type of the NDP: “The Trigger Subtype subfield 3024 may provide more information related to the Trigger Type 3010 such as Sequential NDP, Joint NDP with Orthogonal Codes, Interleaved NDP, etc” (Saad ¶ 0226).
Regarding Claim 14, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 13.
Saad does not teach: a number of interleaved subcarriers determined for each second apparatus is based on at least one of a number of second apparatuses, the determined bandwidth, and the determined type of the NDP.
Regarding Claim 14, Park teaches: a number of interleaved subcarriers determined for each second apparatus is based on at least one of a number of second apparatuses, the determined bandwidth, and the determined type of the NDP: “when there are 3 slave APs and 27 subcarriers are included in one symbol, 9 subcarriers can be used per slave AP. The subcarrier pattern may be as follows when each subcarrier is expressed by a number (or a subcarrier index) from 1 to 27. First subcarrier pattern: 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 (3n+1) Second subcarrier pattern: 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26 (3n+2) Third subcarrier pattern: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27 (3n)” (Park ¶ 0243-0246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Park for the purpose of efficiently transmitting LTF symbols. According to Park: “in the multi-AP environment in which a plurality of slave APs exist, the master AP can allocate an LTF subcarrier pattern applied to a stream transmitted by the slave APs, so that the plurality of slave APs can efficiently transmit LTF symbols” (Park ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 15, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 13, wherein the determining of the bandwidth for the MAP sounding comprises determining any one of 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz, 320 MHz, and 640 MHz as the bandwidth: “the bitmap size may be defined to cover the maximum bandwidth and each bit may be with a fixed subchannel resolution. For example, each bit may indicate the punctured channel scenario on a 20 MHz subchannel. If the maximum supported bandwidth is 320 MHz, then 16 bits may be needed for the bitmap.” (Saad ¶ 0252).
Regarding Claim 18, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 12.
Saad does not teach: the MAP network frame includes a plurality of AP information fields in accordance with a number of second apparatuses, and each of the plurality of AP information fields includes an interleaved subcarrier indication subfield with respect to the interleaved subcarriers.
Regarding Claim 18, Park teaches: the MAP network frame includes a plurality of AP information fields in accordance with a number of second apparatuses, and each of the plurality of AP information fields includes an interleaved subcarrier indication subfield with respect to the interleaved subcarriers: “The sharing AP (e.g., master AP) may transmit a Multi-AP (MAP) trigger frame. Subcarrier pattern information may be included in the MAP trigger frame. For example, the MAP trigger frame may include information related to a method of multi-AP transmission (e.g., distributed MIMO, C-OFDMA, coordinated beamforming, coordinated spatial reuse, etc.)” (Park ¶ 0239).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Park for the purpose of efficiently transmitting LTF symbols. According to Park: “in the multi-AP environment in which a plurality of slave APs exist, the master AP can allocate an LTF subcarrier pattern applied to a stream transmitted by the slave APs, so that the plurality of slave APs can efficiently transmit LTF symbols” (Park ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 23, Saad teaches: An operating method of a first apparatus in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the operating method comprising: receiving a multiple access point (MAP) network frame from a second apparatus: “the Sharing AP may need to trigger the Shared APs to send NDPAs and NDPs to the STAs in the MAP coordinating group. The Sharing AP may trigger the MAP sounding procedure by using a MAP Trigger frame or a JOINT NDPA frame” (Saad ¶ 0125); obtaining, from the MAP network frame, pieces of information with respect to MAP sounding according to joint null data packet (NDP) transmission: “when the MAP NDPA/Joint NDPA frame is used in the procedure, the non-AP STAs may process the MAP NDPA/Joint NDPA/NDP sequence as a conventional sounding procedure” (Saad ¶ 0257); based on the pieces of information with respect to the MAP sounding, simultaneously receiving, from the second apparatus and a third apparatus, a first NDP and a second NDP, respectively, through first interleaved subcarriers and second interleaved subcarriers, respectively: “In joint sounding, the coordinated APs (i.e., AP1 202a, AP2, 202b, and AP3 202c) may transmit the NDP 208 simultaneously where different LTF tones are either spanning the entire bandwidth and multiplexed spatially or using orthogonal codes or otherwise the LTF tones are only sent on selected tones for each AP. When a STA receives an NDP, it measures the channel and prepares the CSI feedback report” (Saad ¶ 0108-0109); transmitting first MAP sounding feedback indicating the estimated first channel to the second apparatus; and transmitting second MAP sounding feedback indicating the estimated second channel to the third apparatus: “Different ways are proposed to collect the CSI from the STAs including: (1) each AP collects all CSI which includes the feedback of the in-BSS and OBSS stations; (2) each AP collects CSI from its associated STAs only; and/or (3) the Sharing AP collects the CSI for all the Shared APs in the coordination group” (Saad ¶ 0109).
Saad does not teach: estimating a first channel between the second apparatus and the first apparatus, based on the first NDP and the first interleaved subcarriers; estimating a second channel between the third apparatus and the first apparatus, based on the second NDP and the second interleaved subcarriers.
Regarding Claim 23, Park teaches: estimating a first channel between the second apparatus and the first apparatus, based on the first NDP and the first interleaved subcarriers; estimating a second channel between the third apparatus and the first apparatus, based on the second NDP and the second interleaved subcarriers: “Since the receiving STA knows which slave AP (or which stream) used which subcarrier to transmit, the receiving STA may combine (by using an interpolation) the subcarriers used by each slave AP (or stream) and estimate a channel for the entire frequency band each slave AP (or stream). Even if the receiving STA does not know which slave AP (or which stream) transmits using which subcarrier, the receiving STA may transmit channel estimation information for each received LTF subcarrier. Since the slave AP that has received the channel estimation information from the receiving STA knows the subcarrier pattern allocation information, the slave AP can know the channel estimation information for each slave AP (or stream)” (Park ¶ 0269-0270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Park for the purpose of efficiently transmitting LTF symbols. According to Park: “in the multi-AP environment in which a plurality of slave APs exist, the master AP can allocate an LTF subcarrier pattern applied to a stream transmitted by the slave APs, so that the plurality of slave APs can efficiently transmit LTF symbols” (Park ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 24, Saad teaches: The operating method of claim 23.
Saad does not teach: the estimating of the first channel comprises: estimating first sub-channels based on the first NDP and the first interleaved subcarriers; estimating second sub-channels corresponding to different subcarriers in which the second interleaved subcarriers are included, by interpolating the estimated first sub-channels; and estimating the first channel based on the estimated first and second sub-channels.
Regarding Claim 24, Park teaches: the estimating of the first channel comprises: estimating first sub-channels based on the first NDP and the first interleaved subcarriers; estimating second sub-channels corresponding to different subcarriers in which the second interleaved subcarriers are included, by interpolating the estimated first sub-channels: “The sharing AP may determine a subcarrier pattern in which the most accurate channel estimation is possible after interpolation in consideration of a coherent bandwidth. For example, the sharing AP may select a subcarrier pattern of a minimum unit among possible subcarrier patterns. For example, the sharing AP may determine a subcarrier pattern for each slave AP” (Park ¶ 0241); and estimating the first channel based on the estimated first and second sub-channels: “even though there are three slave APs, since only two slave APs are transmitted in the same symbol, the subcarrier pattern may become denser. That is, since channel estimation may be performed with more subcarriers, more accurate channel information can be obtained. That is, since more subcarriers used for channel estimation may be allocated to each slave AP, an effect of increasing channel estimation accuracy can be obtained” (Park ¶ 0286).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Park for the purpose of efficiently transmitting LTF symbols. According to Park: “in the multi-AP environment in which a plurality of slave APs exist, the master AP can allocate an LTF subcarrier pattern applied to a stream transmitted by the slave APs, so that the plurality of slave APs can efficiently transmit LTF symbols” (Park ¶ 0005).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad and Park as applied to claim 12 above in further view of Cherian.
Regarding Claim 16, Saad and Park teach: The operating method of claim 12.
Saad and Park do not teach: collecting information for assigning subcarriers, wherein the determining of the interleaved subcarriers for each second apparatus is performed based on the collected information.
Regarding Claim 16, Cherian teaches: collecting information for assigning subcarriers, wherein the determining of the interleaved subcarriers for each second apparatus is performed based on the collected information : “Arbitration approach 415 shows an exemplary joint multi-user communication or distributed MIMO communication across access points 104a-d within the BSSs 302a-d. With this approach, a cluster of APs (such as APs 104a-d) may service N 1-SS STAs simultaneously, where N is ˜¾ of a total number of antennas across all APs within the cluster. Distributed MIMO communications may coordinate a collection of antennas across the multiple APs within a cluster to transmit to stations within the cluster” (Cherian ¶ 0069) and “the sounding frames 804a-b are transmitted by the APs 104a-b simultaneously as part of a joint MIMO transmission. In some aspects, the APs 104a-b may transmit the two NDP frames using interleaved tones, or Q-matrix in some aspects” (Cherian ¶ 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad and Park with Cherian for the purpose of meeting increased capacity demands required by wireless network applications. According to Cherian: “In order to satisfy the bandwidth and capacity requirements users require, improvements in the ability of a wireless medium to carry larger and larger amounts of data are needed” (Cherian ¶ 0004).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad, Park, and Cherian as applied to claim 16 above in further view of Sugai et al. (US 2021/0168004), hereinafter Sugai.
Regarding Claim 17, Saad, Park, and Cherian teach: The operating method of claim 16.
Saad, Park, and Cherian do not teach: the collected information includes at least one of history information with respect to the interleaved subcarriers for each second apparatus and status information with respect to the MAP network.
Regarding Claim 17, Sugai teaches: the collected information includes at least one of history information with respect to the interleaved subcarriers for each second apparatus and status information with respect to the MAP network: “Tables of subcarrier interleave patterns corresponding to binary information of superimposition data, subcarrier interleave patterns corresponding to binary information of superimposition data and a plurality of client devices STA that is destinations, and a plurality of selectable subcarrier interleave patterns are stored, for example, in a memory in the frequency direction information superimposition section 71” (Sugai ¶ 0132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad, Park, and Cherian with Sugai for the purpose of selecting a subcarrier interleave pattern which causes signal powers to become most uniform. According to Sugai: “the frequency direction information superimposition section 71 has a plurality of subcarrier interleave patterns stored as a table therein, and can calculate signal power for each client device STA when interleave is performed with each subcarrier interleave pattern and select and determine a subcarrier interleave pattern with which the signal powers become most uniform” (Sugai ¶ 0131).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad and Park as applied to claim 18 above in further view of Nakano.
Regarding Claim 19, Saad and Park teach: The operating method of claim 18.
Saad and Park do not teach: the interleaved subcarrier indication subfield includes a starting offset subfield indicating a starting subcarrier and an increment subfield for interleaving subcarriers.
Regarding Claim 19, Nakano teaches: the interleaved subcarrier indication subfield includes a starting offset subfield indicating a starting subcarrier and an increment subfield for interleaving subcarriers: “For example, in the coordinated transmission, a Master AP may transmit, to the Slave APs, the MAP Trigger (FIG. 1) that includes an offset value (i.e., waveform-conversion parameter). Meanwhile, the subcarrier interval of the EHT-STF may be indicated from the Master AP to the Slave APs or may be defined in the standard, for example . . . in FIG. 9, offset=0 is configured for Slave AP 1, offset=+1 is configured for Slave AP 2, and the offset=−1 is configured for Slave AP 1. This configuration of the offsets makes the subcarriers to which the EHT-LTFs of each of the Slave APs are assigned different from each other, as illustrated in FIG. 9. That is, in FIG. 9, signal waveforms of the EHT-STFs in the frequency domain transmitted by each of the Slave APs are different from each other . . . For example, offset intervals to be configured for the Slave APs may be configured to be wider than those of when the offset intervals are, for example, 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, and so forth (i.e., when shifted by one subcarrier). Further, the offset values may be configured to a value obtained by rounding down “Subcarrier interval common in Slave APs/(Slave AP number).” In one example, when the subcarrier interval common in the Slave APs is eight subcarriers and the Slave AP number is three, the offset values become 0, 2, and −2” (Nakano ¶ 0106 and 0109 and 0114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Saad with Nakano for the purpose of reducing variation in received power in EHT-STFs. According to Nakano: “according to Method 3, in the STA (e.g., radio communication apparatus 200), it is possible to reduce the variation in received power in the EHT-STFs transmitted from a plurality of Slave APs and thus to improve the AGC performance” (Nakano ¶ 0109).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights