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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 and 09/19/2024 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 9-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanaya et al. (US 2023/0422179 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kanaya et al. (figure 17) disclose a method comprising: receiving, by a station (STA2) and from a first access point, a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising an indication of a presence or an absence of a second PPDU, overlapping with the first PPDU and transmitted by a second access point (AP1) (paragraphs [0123], [0124] and [0132], “a transmission power value of STA2 is calculated by STA2. Further, a path loss value used for the calculation of the transmission power value of STA2 is measured based on trigger frames transmitted from a plurality of APs 100 (e.g., AP1 and AP2) and received by STA2“, and “STA 200 may receive acceptable interference power (also referred to as Acceptable Maximum Interference Level) notified in the MAP TF from the Sharing AP (e.g., AP1 in FIG. 17). The information on the acceptable interference power may be included in a Common info field of the MAP TF (or the Trigger frame) as illustrated in FIG. 14, may be included in a User info field of the MAP TF (or the Trigger frame) as illustrated in FIG. 15, or may be included in a STA info field in the User info field as illustrated in FIG. 16. ”); determining, by the station and based on the indication of a presence or an absence of the second PPDU, a first transmit power for transmission of a third PPDU (DATA packet) to the first access point; and transmitting, by the station and to the first access point, the third PPDU using the first transmit power (paragraphs [0133] and [0123], “when STA2 receives the MAP TF, STA2 may configure transmission power of STA2 based on the acceptable interference power included in the MAP TF, for example. The transmission power control using the acceptable interference power allows the Shared AP to configure transmission power of STA 200 associating with the Shared AP, considering the interference with the Sharing AP, so that the accuracy of the transmission power control can be enhanced.”, and “STA 200 determines the uplink transmission power based on the plurality of signals (e.g., MAP TF and Trigger frame) received from the plurality of transmission sources (e.g., AP1 and AP2) that perform coordinated communication of the uplink, and performs uplink transmission with the determined transmission power”).
Regarding claim 2, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the first transmit power by the station is further based on: a received power of the first PPDU; and a received power of the second PPDU (paragraphs [0123] and [0124]).
Regarding claim 3, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by a station and from a first access point, the first PPDU, wherein the indication of a presence or absence of a second PPDU, overlapping with the first PPDU, indicates a presence of a second PPDU overlapping the first PPDU (paragraph [0132], “STA 200 may receive acceptable interference power (also referred to as Acceptable Maximum Interference Level) notified in the MAP TF from the Sharing AP (e.g., AP1 in FIG. 17). The information on the acceptable interference power may be included in a Common info field of the MAP TF (or the Trigger frame) as illustrated in FIG. 14, may be included in a User info field of the MAP TF (or the Trigger frame) as illustrated in FIG. 15, or may be included in a STA info field in the User info field as illustrated in FIG. 16. ”).
Regarding claim 6, Kanaya et al. (figure 17) disclose a method comprising: receiving, by a station (STA2) and from a first access point (AP2), a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising an indication of a presence of a second PPDU, overlapping with the first PPDU and transmitted by a second access point (paragraphs [0123], [0124] and [0132], “a transmission power value of STA2 is calculated by STA2. Further, a path loss value used for the calculation of the transmission power value of STA2 is measured based on trigger frames transmitted from a plurality of APs 100 (e.g., AP1 and AP2) and received by STA2“, and “STA 200 may receive acceptable interference power (also referred to as Acceptable Maximum Interference Level) notified in the MAP TF from the Sharing AP (e.g., AP1 in FIG. 17). The information on the acceptable interference power may be included in a Common info field of the MAP TF (or the Trigger frame) as illustrated in FIG. 14, may be included in a User info field of the MAP TF (or the Trigger frame) as illustrated in FIG. 15, or may be included in a STA info field in the User info field as illustrated in FIG. 16. ”); and transmitting, by the station and to the first access point, a third PPDU (DATA packet) using a transmit power that is based on the indication (paragraphs [0123] and [0133], “when STA2 receives the MAP TF, STA2 may configure transmission power of STA2 based on the acceptable interference power included in the MAP TF, for example. The transmission power control using the acceptable interference power allows the Shared AP to configure transmission power of STA 200 associating with the Shared AP, considering the interference with the Sharing AP, so that the accuracy of the transmission power control can be enhanced.”, and “STA 200 determines the uplink transmission power based on the plurality of signals (e.g., MAP TF and Trigger frame) received from the plurality of transmission sources (e.g., AP1 and AP2) that perform coordinated communication of the uplink, and performs uplink transmission with the determined transmission power”).
Regarding claim 7, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 6, wherein a data field of the first PPDU comprises an indication of whether the station is to transmit the third PPDU based on a second transmit power (paragraphs [0123], [0124] and [0132]).
Regarding claim 9, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the first access point and the second access point belong to a multi-access point group, and wherein the first access point or the second access point is a master access point of the multi-access point group (figures 1-2, paragraphs [0015] and [0016]).
Regarding claim 10, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the first PPDU comprises a trigger frame indicating a frequency resource allocation to the station for transmitting the third PPDU, and wherein: the third PPDU is transmitted within a short interframe space after the receiving of the first PPDU (paragraph [0127]); and the first PPDU and the second PPDU overlap in both time and frequency (see figure 17, Trigger frame from AP1 and AP2 are the same).
Regarding claim 11, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 6, wherein a data field of the first PPDU is a duplicate of the data field of the second PPDU (see figure 17, Trigger frame from AP1 and AP2 are the same).
Regarding claim 12, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving, by the station from the first access point, a fourth PPDU; and determining, by the station, a second transmit power based on a received power of the fourth PPDU (see figure 17, the action is continuing when the station receives a fourth PPDU (new Trigger frame)).
Regarding claim 13, Kanaya et al. (figure 17) disclose a method comprising: transmitting, by a first access point, a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising an indication of a presence or an absence of a second PPDU, overlapping with the first PPDU and transmitted by a second access point (paragraphs [0123], [0124] and [0132], “a transmission power value of STA2 is calculated by STA2. Further, a path loss value used for the calculation of the transmission power value of STA2 is measured based on trigger frames transmitted from a plurality of APs 100 (e.g., AP1 and AP2) and received by STA2“, and “STA 200 may receive acceptable interference power (also referred to as Acceptable Maximum Interference Level) notified in the MAP TF from the Sharing AP (e.g., AP1 in FIG. 17). The information on the acceptable interference power may be included in a Common info field of the MAP TF (or the Trigger frame) as illustrated in FIG. 14, may be included in a User info field of the MAP TF (or the Trigger frame) as illustrated in FIG. 15, or may be included in a STA info field in the User info field as illustrated in FIG. 16. ”); and receiving, by the first access point and from a station, a third PPDU (DATA packet) transmitted based on the indication of a presence or an absence of the second PPDU (paragraphs [0133] and [0123], “when STA2 receives the MAP TF, STA2 may configure transmission power of STA2 based on the acceptable interference power included in the MAP TF, for example. The transmission power control using the acceptable interference power allows the Shared AP to configure transmission power of STA 200 associating with the Shared AP, considering the interference with the Sharing AP, so that the accuracy of the transmission power control can be enhanced.”, and “STA 200 determines the uplink transmission power based on the plurality of signals (e.g., MAP TF and Trigger frame) received from the plurality of transmission sources (e.g., AP1 and AP2) that perform coordinated communication of the uplink, and performs uplink transmission with the determined transmission power”).
Regarding claim 14, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 13, further comprising receiving, by the first access point (AP2) from a third access point (AP1), a first frame (MAP TF) soliciting the first access point to transmit the first PPDU (Trigger frame) (see figure 19).
Regarding claim 15, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 13, further comprising transmitting, by the first access point (AP2) to the second access point (AP3), a first frame (MAP TF) soliciting the second access point to transmit the second PPDU (Trigger frame) (see figure 19).
Regarding claim 16, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 13, further comprising transmitting, by the first access point to the station, a fourth PPDU, wherein the fourth PPDU comprises an indication of a transmit power used to transmit the fourth PPDU (see figure 17, the action is continuing when the station receives a fourth PPDU (new Trigger frame)).
Regarding claim 19, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the first access point and the second access point belong to a multi-access point group, and wherein the first access point, second access point, or third access point is a master access point.
Regarding claim 20, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the first PPDU comprises a trigger frame indicating a frequency resource allocation to the station for transmission of the third PPDU, and wherein the third PPDU is received within a short interframe space after the transmitting of the first PPDU (figure 21, paragraphs [0144] and [0127]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanaya et al. in view of Ryu et al. (US 2021/0307099 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 1 above. In addition, Kanaya et al. disclose wherein the indication of a presence or an absence of the second PPDU indicates a presence of the second PPDU (paragraphs [0123]-[0124] and [0132]). Kanaya et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first PPDU and the second PPDU comprises a plurality of long training field (LTF) symbols, and at least two LTF symbols of the plurality of LTF symbols of the first PPDU overlap with at least two LTF symbols of the plurality of LTF symbols of the second PPDU. However, Ryu et al. disclose PPDU includes plurality of LTF symbols (figure 3, paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the LTF symbols of Ryu et al. to the first PPDU and the second PPDU of Kanaya et al. as a system design preference for formatting the PPDU.
Regarding claim 8, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 6 above. Kanaya et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the second PPDU comprises a signal field (SIG) and a data field; and wherein: a SIG of the first PPDU is a duplicate of the SIG of the second PPDU, a data field of the first PPDU is a duplicate of the data field of the second PPDU, and the SIG of the second PPDU comprises an indication of whether a data field of the first PPDU is a duplicate of the data field of the second PPDU. However, Ryu et al. disclose PPDU includes a SIG and data field (figure 3, paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the SIG and data field of Ryu et al. to the first PPDU and the second PPDU of Kanaya et al. as a system design preference for formatting the PPDU.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 17 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 5, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 1. However, Kanaya et al. fail to further disclose the method above wherein a first long training field (LTF) symbol of at least two LTF symbols of the first PPDU is phase shifted relative to an overlapping second LTF symbol of the at least two LTF symbols of the second PPDU; and wherein a phase shift between the first LTF symbol and the second LTF symbol is equal to 180 degrees for all subcarriers.
Regarding claim 17, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 16. However, Kanaya et al. fail to disclose the method above wherein the indication of presence or absence of the second PPDU indicates presence of the second PPDU, and wherein the transmit power of the third PPDU is further based on a received power on the fourth PPDU.
Regarding claim 18, Kanaya et al. disclose the method of claim 16. However, Kanaya et al. fail to disclose the method above wherein a data field of the first PPDU comprises an indication of whether the station is to transmit the third PPDU based on a received power of the fourth PPDU.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryu et al. (US 2022/0104257 A1) disclose a method and apparatus for performing joint transmission in a wireless LAN system; an M-AP transmits a C-RTS frame to first and second S-APs; the M-AP receives, from the first and second S-APs, a CTS frame that is a response to the C-RTS frame; the M-AP performs joint transmission on an STA through the first and second S-APs.
Lou et al. (US 2023/0114857 A1) teach a method for generating an extremely high throughput (EHT) physical (PHY) layer protocol data unit (PDU) (PPDU) based on a PPDU format defining a preamble comprising (i) a fixed duration universal signaling (U-SIG) field, (ii) an EHT signaling (EHT-SIG) field, and (iii) an EHT short training field (EHT-STF), wherein the U-SIG and EHT-SIG fields respectively comprise an extra signaling indicator and extra signaling to support a third feature; and transmitting the U-SIG and EHT-SIG fields on a first bandwidth segment, followed by the EHT-STF on any of the first bandwidth segment and a second bandwidth segment, followed by (iii) an EHT data field on any of the first and second bandwidth segments.
Zheng et al. (US 10,420,034 B1) disclose a method and system for adaptively controlling uplink communications parameters of a receiving station by an access point; the uplink power and/or uplink rate of a receiving station is controlled by the access point based on uplink RSSI and/or SNR measurements of uplink packets sent by the receiving station to the access point; the access point may adjust a target RSSI value based on the uplink RSSI and/or SNR measurements of uplink packets in the allocated resource unit; the adjusted target RSSI value is sent to the receiving station in a trigger frame from the access point and the receiving station may then set the uplink transmission power based on the target RSSI value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOCHIEN B VUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7902. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-06:00PM M-F.
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUOCHIEN B VUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights