DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Reconsideration filed 6/17/2026. Claims 22-25 have been previously canceled. Claims 1-21 are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-13 and 18-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections of these claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly cited Hu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2025/0088237 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 6, Applicant argues that previously cited Maamari et al. (U.S. Publication US 2017/0134076 A1) does not disclose its SSW feedback frame being sent “in the best transmitter beam direction”, as required by the claim language. Regarding independent claims 4 and 18, Applicant argues that previously cited Maamari et al. does not disclose its SWW acknowledgement frame being sent “in the best receiver beam direction”, as required by the claim language. These arguments are persuasive.
A further search of the prior art has revealed newly cited Hu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2025/0088237 A1). Hu et al. teaches a beamforming training procedure performed between an initiator and a responder wherein the initiator directionally sends a sector sweep feedback frame #3 by using an optimal beam indicated by the responder, and wherein the responder sends a sector sweep acknowledgement frame #4 by using an optimal beam indicated by the initiator (See paragraphs 99-103 and Figure 3 of Hu et al.). Using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames has the advantage of giving the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams. Thus, it is believed that the argued claim limitations are rendered obvious in view of these teachings of newly cited Hu et al. Please see the rejections below for further detail.
Due to the new grounds of rejection this action is made non-final.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maamari et al. (U.S. Publication US 2017/0134076 A1) in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2025/0088237 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Maamari et al. discloses a method performed by a wireless device functioning as a transmitter station (STA) in a wireless network to perform beam alignment with a receiver STA (See the abstract, paragraphs 55-56, and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to a method for beamforming training performed by an initiator STA, which is a transmitter STA, with a responder STA, which is a receiver STA, in a wireless network). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly transmitting a first plurality of beam-sweeping frames in a first plurality of beam directions (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the initiator STA transmitting sector sweep, SSW, frames in different sector directions). Maamari et al. further discloses wirelessly receiving a second plurality of beam-sweeping frames from the receiver STA, wherein the second plurality of beam-sweeping frames were transmitted by the receiver STA in a second plurality of beam directions and each of the second plurality of beam-sweeping frames includes a first indication of which of the first plurality of beam directions is considered by the receiver STA to be a best transmitter beam direction (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 60, and Figure 3 of Maamari et al. for reference to the initiator STA receiving SSW frames from the responder STA in different beam directions, with the SSW frames including feedback of antenna IDs informing the initiator STA of the favorable, i.e. best, antenna for downlink directional transmission, i.e. the best beam direction). Maamari et al. also discloses determining which of the first plurality of beam directions is considered to be the best transmitter beam direction based on the first indication included in one of the second plurality of beam-sweeping frames (See paragraph 60 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the initiator STA determining the favorable antenna for downlink directional transmission based on the feedback received from the responder STA). Maamari et al. further discloses selecting one of the second plurality of beam directions that is associated with a highest received power level at the transmitter STA to be a best receiver beam direction; and wirelessly transmitting a best beam indication feedback (BBF) frame to the receiver STA, wherein the BBF frame includes a second indication of the best receiver beam direction (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 81, Table 1 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to initiator STA using the SSW frames received from the responder STA to determine the optimum transmit sector based on measured SNRs, and for reference to the initiator STA transmitting a SSW-feedback frame to the responder STA indicating the optimum sector). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly receiving a BBF acknowledgement (ACK) frame that acknowledges the BBF frame from the receiver STA (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the initiator STA receiving a SSW-Ack frame from the responder STA acknowledging the SSW-feedback frame). Although Maamari et al. discloses transmitting a SSW feedback frame, Maamari et al. does not specifically disclose that the feedback frame is transmitted in the best transmitter beam direction. However, Hu et al., in the field of communications, discloses a beamforming training procedure performed between an initiator and a responder wherein the initiator directionally sends a sector sweep feedback frame #3 by using an optimal beam indicated by the responder, and wherein the responder sends a sector sweep acknowledgement frame #4 by using an optimal beam indicated by the initiator (See paragraphs 99-103 and Figure 3 of Hu et al.). Using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames has the advantage of giving the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Hu et al., to combine using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames, as suggested by Hu et al., within the system and method of Maamari et al., with the motivation being to give the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams.
With respect to claim 2, Maamari et al. discloses wirelessly transmitting a data frame to the receiver STA in the best transmitter beam direction (See paragraphs 24-25 of Maamari et al. for reference to using the beamforming to determine an antenna sector on which to transmit/receive a PPDU).
With respect to claim 3, Maamari et al. discloses wherein the transmitter STA is an access point (AP) and the receiver STA is a non-AP STA (See paragraph 27 of Maamari et al. for reference to embodiments wherein the STAs may include an AP and STAs that do not act as an AP, such that the initiator STA may be an AP and the responder STA may be a non-AP STA).
With respect to claim 4, Maamari et al. discloses a method performed by a wireless device functioning as a receiver station (STA) in a wireless network to perform beam alignment with a transmitter STA (See the abstract, paragraphs 55-56, and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to a method for beamforming training performed by a responder STA, which is a receiver STA, with an initiator STA, which is a transmitter STA, in a wireless network). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly receiving a first plurality of beam-sweeping frames from the transmitter STA, wherein the first plurality of beam-sweeping frames were transmitted by the transmitter STA in a first plurality of beam directions (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the responder STA receiving sector sweep, SSW, frames in different sector directions transmitter by the initiator STA). Maamari et al. further discloses selecting one of the first plurality of beam directions that is associated with a highest received power level at the receiver STA to be a best transmitter beam direction (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 81, Table 1 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to responder STA using the SSW frames received from the initiator STA to determine the optimum transmit sector with the highest SNR based on measured SNRs of the SSW frames). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly transmitting a second plurality of beam-sweeping frames in a second plurality of beam directions, wherein each of the second plurality of beam-sweeping frames includes a first indication of the best transmitter beam direction (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 60, and Figure 3 of Maamari et al. for reference to the responder STA transmitting SSW frames to the initiator STA in different beam directions, with the SSW frames including feedback of antenna IDs informing the initiator STA of the favorable, i.e. best, antenna for downlink directional transmission, i.e. the best beam direction). Maamari et al. further discloses wirelessly receiving a best beam indication feedback (BBF) frame from the transmitter STA, wherein the BBF frame includes a second indication of which of the second plurality of beam directions is considered by the transmitter STA to be a best receiver beam direction; determining which of the second plurality of beam directions is considered to be the best receiver beam direction based on the second indication included in the BBF frame (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 81, Table 1 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the responder STA receiving a SSW-feedback frame from the initiator STA indicating the optimum sector, wherein the SSW-feedback is used by the responder STA to determine the best receiver sector). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly transmitting a BBF acknowledgement (ACK) frame that acknowledges the BBF frame to the transmitter STA (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the responder STA transmitting a SSW-Ack frame to the initiator STA acknowledging the SSW-feedback frame). Although Maamari et al. discloses transmitting a SSW acknowledgement frame, Maamari et al. does not specifically disclose that the acknowledgement frame is transmitted in the best receiver beam direction. However, Hu et al., in the field of communications, discloses a beamforming training procedure performed between an initiator and a responder wherein the initiator directionally sends a sector sweep feedback frame #3 by using an optimal beam indicated by the responder, and wherein the responder sends a sector sweep acknowledgement frame #4 by using an optimal beam indicated by the initiator (See paragraphs 99-103 and Figure 3 of Hu et al.). Using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames has the advantage of giving the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Hu et al., to combine using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames, as suggested by Hu et al., within the system and method of Maamari et al., with the motivation being to give the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams.
With respect to claim 5, Maamari et al. discloses wirelessly receiving a data frame from the transmitter STA; and responsive to receiving the data frame, wirelessly transmitting an acknowledgement (ACK) frame to the transmitter STA in the best receiver beam direction (See paragraphs 24-25 of Maamari et al. for reference to using the beamforming to determine an antenna sector on which to transmit/receive a PPDU, such that the responder STA may receive a PPDU from the initiator STA and transmit feedback, i.e. an ACK, to the initiator STA using the determined sectors).
With respect to claim 18, Maamari et al. discloses a method performed by a wireless device functioning as a non-relay station (STA) in a wireless network to perform beam alignment with a relay STA that is to relay data frames between an access point (AP) and the non-relay STA (See the abstract, paragraph 27, paragraphs 55-56, and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to a method for beamforming training performed by an responder STA with an initiator STA, in a wireless network, and for reference to embodiments wherein the STAs may include an AP station and a relay STA exchanging communications between a source STA, i.e. the AP STA, and a destination STA, which may be a non-relay-capable STA, such that the initiator STA may be a relay STA and the responder STA may be a non-AP STA). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly receiving a first plurality of beam-sweeping frames from the relay STA, wherein the first plurality of beam-sweeping frames were transmitted by the relay STA in a first plurality of beam directions (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the responder STA receiving sector sweep, SSW, frames in different sector directions transmitter by the initiator STA). Maamari et al. further discloses selecting one of the first plurality of beam directions that is associated with a highest received power level at the non-relay STA to be a best relay STA beam direction (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 81, Table 1 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to responder STA using the SSW frames received from the initiator STA to determine the optimum transmit sector with the highest SNR based on measured SNRs of the SSW frames). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly transmitting a second plurality of beam-sweeping frames in a second plurality of beam directions, wherein each of the second plurality of beam-sweeping frames includes a first indication of the best relay STA beam direction (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 60, and Figure 3 of Maamari et al. for reference to the responder STA transmitting SSW frames to the initiator STA in different beam directions, with the SSW frames including feedback of antenna IDs informing the initiator STA of the favorable, i.e. best, antenna for downlink directional transmission, i.e. the best beam direction). Maamari et al. further discloses wirelessly receiving a best beam indication feedback (BBF) frame from the relay STA, wherein the BBF frame includes a second indication of which of the second plurality of beam directions is considered by the relay STA to be a best non-relay STA beam direction; and determining which of the second plurality of beam directions is considered to be the best non-relay STA beam direction based on the second indication included in the BBF frame (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 81, Table 1 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the responder STA receiving a SSW-feedback frame from the initiator STA indicating the optimum sector, wherein the SSW-feedback is used by the responder STA to determine the best receiver sector). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly transmitting a BBF acknowledgement (ACK) frame that acknowledges the BBF frame to the relay STA (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the responder STA transmitting a SSW-Ack frame to the initiator STA acknowledging the SSW-feedback frame). Although Maamari et al. discloses transmitting a SSW acknowledgement frame, Maamari et al. does not specifically disclose that the acknowledgement frame is transmitted in the best non-relay STA beam direction. However, Hu et al., in the field of communications, discloses a beamforming training procedure performed between an initiator and a responder wherein the initiator directionally sends a sector sweep feedback frame #3 by using an optimal beam indicated by the responder, and wherein the responder sends a sector sweep acknowledgement frame #4 by using an optimal beam indicated by the initiator (See paragraphs 99-103 and Figure 3 of Hu et al.). Using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames has the advantage of giving the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Hu et al., to combine using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames, as suggested by Hu et al., within the system and method of Maamari et al., with the motivation being to give the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams.
With respect to claim 19, Maamari et al. discloses wirelessly receiving a relay data frame from the relay STA, wherein the relay data frame includes data generated by the AP; and wirelessly transmitting an ACK frame that acknowledges the relay data frame to the relay STA in the best non-relay STA beam direction (See paragraphs 24-25 and paragraph 27 of Maamari et al. for reference to using the beamforming to determine an antenna sector on which to transmit/receive a PPDU, such that the responder STA may receive a PPDU from the initiator STA and transmit feedback, i.e. an ACK, from the responder STA using the determined sectors, wherein the communications may include exchanging communications between a source STA, i.e. the AP STA, and a destination STA, which may be a non-relay-capable STA, such that the initiator STA may be an relay STA and the responder STA may be a non-AP STA).
With respect to claim 20, Maamari et al. discloses wirelessly receiving a relay trigger frame from the relay STA; wirelessly transmitting a data frame that includes data intended for the AP to the relay STA in the best non-relay STA beam direction; and wirelessly receiving a relay ACK frame that acknowledges the data frame from the relay STA (See paragraphs 24-25 and paragraph 27 of Maamari et al. for reference to using the beamforming to determine an antenna sector on which to transmit/receive a PPDU, such that the initiator STA may transmit a trigger PPDU to the responder STA and receive a PPDU from the responder STA using the determined sectors, wherein the communications may include exchanging communications between a source STA, i.e. the AP STA, and a destination STA, which may be a non-relay-capable STA, such that the initiator STA may be an relay STA and the responder STA may be a non-AP STA).
Claims 6-11, 13, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maamari et al. in view of Hu et al., and in further view of Baek et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0315057 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Maamari et al. discloses a method performed by a wireless device functioning as an access point (AP) in a wireless network to perform beam alignment with a relay station (STA) that is to relay data frames between the AP and a non-relay STA (See the abstract, paragraph 27, paragraphs 55-56, and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to a method for beamforming training performed by an initiator STA with a responder STA, in a wireless network, and for reference to embodiments wherein the STAs may include an AP station and a relay STA exchanging communications between a source STA, i.e. the AP STA, and a destination STA, which may be a non-relay-capable STA, such that the initiator STA may be an AP STA and the responder STA may be a relay STA). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly transmitting a first plurality of beam-sweeping frames in a first plurality of beam directions (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the initiator STA transmitting sector sweep, SSW, frames in different sector directions). Maamari et al. further discloses wirelessly receiving a second plurality of beam-sweeping frames from the relay STA, wherein the second plurality of beam-sweeping frames were transmitted by the relay STA in a second plurality of beam directions and each of the second plurality of beam-sweeping frames includes a first indication of which of the first plurality of beam directions is considered by the relay STA to be a best AP beam direction (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 60, and Figure 3 of Maamari et al. for reference to the initiator STA receiving SSW frames from the responder STA in different beam directions, with the SSW frames including feedback of antenna IDs informing the initiator STA of the favorable, i.e. best, antenna for downlink directional transmission, i.e. the best beam direction). Maamari et al. also determining which of the first plurality of beam directions is considered to be the best AP beam direction based on the first indication included in one of the second plurality of beam-sweeping frames (See paragraph 60 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the initiator STA determining the favorable antenna for downlink directional transmission based on the feedback received from the responder STA). Maamari et al. further discloses selecting one of the second plurality of beam directions that is associated with a highest received power level at the AP to be a best relay STA beam direction; and wirelessly transmitting a best beam indication feedback (BBF) frame to the relay STA, wherein the BBF frame includes a second indication of the best relay STA beam direction (See paragraphs 55-57, paragraph 81, Table 1 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to initiator STA using the SSW frames received from the responder STA to determine the optimum transmit sector based on measured SNRs, and for reference to the initiator STA transmitting a SSW-feedback frame to the responder STA indicating the optimum sector). Maamari et al. also discloses wirelessly receiving a BBF acknowledgement (ACK) frame that acknowledges the BBF frame from the relay STA (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the initiator STA receiving a SSW-Ack frame from the responder STA acknowledging the SSW-feedback frame). Although Maamari et al. discloses transmitting a SSW feedback frame, Maamari et al. does not specifically disclose that the feedback frame is transmitted in the best AP beam direction. However, Hu et al., in the field of communications, discloses a beamforming training procedure performed between an initiator and a responder wherein the initiator directionally sends a sector sweep feedback frame #3 by using an optimal beam indicated by the responder, and wherein the responder sends a sector sweep acknowledgement frame #4 by using an optimal beam indicated by the initiator (See paragraphs 99-103 and Figure 3 of Hu et al.). Using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames has the advantage of giving the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Hu et al., to combine using the indicated optimal beams to transmit the feedback and acknowledgement frames, as suggested by Hu et al., within the system and method of Maamari et al., with the motivation being to give the feedback and acknowledgement frames the best chance to be properly received and decoded by using the best determined beams. Further, Maamari et al. does not specifically disclose wirelessly transmitting a beam-sweeping announcement (BSA) frame. However, Baek et al., in the field of communications, discloses a base station transmitting configuration information for a beam sweeping operation, which is equivalent to a BSA frame, for an ultra-high frequency band communication between devices (See paragraphs 7-8, paragraph 91, and Table 1 of Baek et al. for reference to the configuration information for a beam sweeping operation). Transmitting and receiving configuration information for a beam sweeping operation has the advantage of allowing the specifics of the beam sweeping operation to be defined by the network before beam sweeping is performed. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Baek et al., to combine transmitting and receiving configuration information for a beam sweeping operation, as suggested by Baek et al., within the system and method of Maamari et al., with the motivation being to allow the specifics of the beam sweeping operation to be defined by the network before beam sweeping is performed.
With respect to claim 7, Maamari et al. discloses wirelessly transmitting a data frame that includes data intended for the non-relay STA to the relay STA in the best AP beam direction; and wirelessly receiving a relay ACK frame that acknowledges the data frame from the relay STA (See paragraphs 24-25 and paragraph 27 of Maamari et al. for reference to using the beamforming to determine an antenna sector on which to transmit/receive a PPDU, such that the initiator STA may transmit a PPDU to the responder STA and receive feedback, i.e. an ACK, from the responder STA using the determined sectors, wherein the communications may include exchanging communications between a source STA, i.e. the AP STA, and a destination STA, which may be a non-relay-capable STA, such that the initiator STA may be an AP STA and the responder STA may be a relay STA).
With respect to claim 8, Maamari et al. discloses wirelessly transmitting a relay trigger frame to the relay STA in the best AP beam direction; and wirelessly receiving a relay data frame from the relay STA, wherein the relay data frame includes data intended for the AP that was generated by the non-relay STA (See paragraphs 24-25 and paragraph 27 of Maamari et al. for reference to using the beamforming to determine an antenna sector on which to transmit/receive a PPDU, such that the initiator STA may transmit a trigger PPDU to the responder STA and receive a PPDU from the responder STA using the determined sectors, wherein the communications may include exchanging communications between a source STA, i.e. the AP STA, and a destination STA, which may be a non-relay-capable STA, such that the initiator STA may be an AP STA and the responder STA may be a relay STA).
With respect to claim 9, as shown above in the rejection of claim 6, Baek et al. discloses an equivalent of a BSA frame. Baek et al. also discloses wherein the BSA frame includes an identifier of the relay STA and an identifier of the non-relay STA (See paragraphs 120-121 of Baek et al. for reference to announcement or solicitation messages indicating the identifiers of the STAs to be included in a relay function). Thus, the limitations of this claim are rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Baek et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 6.
With respect to claim 10, as shown above in the rejection of claim 6, Baek et al. discloses an equivalent of a BSA frame. Baek et al. also discloses wherein the BSA frame further includes an indication of number of beam-sweeping frames that are to be included in the first plurality of beam-sweeping frames and information regarding a transmission scheme that is to be used to transmit the first plurality of beam-sweeping frames (See paragraph 91, paragraph 95, and Table 1 of Baek et al. for reference to the configuration information indicating a number of beams for the beam sweeping operation and indicating the resources to be used for the beam sweeping operation, which corresponds to a transmission scheme used to transmit beam sweeping frames). Thus, the limitations of this claim are rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Baek et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 6.
With respect to claim 11, Maamari et al. discloses wherein the first plurality of beam-sweeping frames is transmitted sequentially (See paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 3A of Maamari et al. for reference to the SSW frames being transmitted sequentially in time as illustrated in Figure 3A).
With respect to claim 13, Maamari et al. discloses the first plurality of beam-sweeping frames is wirelessly transmitted in a millimeter wave channel (See paragraph 49 of Maamari et al. for reference to the beamforming training being in the millimeter wave band). Maamari et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the BSA frame is wirelessly transmitted in a below 7 Gigahertz channel.
With respect to claim 21, Maamari et al. discloses the first plurality of beam-sweeping frames is wirelessly transmitted in a millimeter wave channel (See paragraph 49 of Maamari et al. for reference to the beamforming training being in the millimeter wave band). Maamari et al. does not specifically disclose the AP is configured to operate in both a below 7 Gigahertz channel.
With further respect to claims 13 and 21, Baek et al. discloses communications being performed in both a 6GHz or below band for legacy 4G systems and in a higher frequency band for 5G communication system (See paragraphs 3 and 59 of Maamari et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Baek et al., to combine transmitting configuration in a 6GHz or below band, as suggested by Baek et al., within the system and method of Maamari et al., with the motivation being to allow legacy 4G communication devices to learn of the beam sweeping configuration information.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maamari et al. in view of Hu et al. and Baek et al., and in further view of Ghassemzadeh et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0036421 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Maamari et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the first plurality of beam-sweeping frames is transmitted simultaneously in different subchannels. However, Ghassemzadeh et al., in the field of communications, discloses a beam sweeping operation with the ability to simultaneously beam sweep multiple transmit beams in multiple channels (See paragraph 15 of Ghassemzadeh et al.). Simultaneously beam sweeping multiple transmit beams in multiple channels has the advantage of allowing the beam sweeping operation to be completed in a faster manner. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Ghassemzadeh et al., to combine simultaneously beam sweeping multiple transmit beams in multiple channels, as suggested by Ghassemzadeh et al., within the system and method of Maamari et al., with the motivation being to allow the beam sweeping operation to be completed in a faster manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights