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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 7/16/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. “Wu” US 2021/0281363 in view of Xin et al. “Xin” US 2022/0385518.
Regarding claims 1 and 30, Wu teaches a method and a wireless device to function as a station (STA) in a wireless network, the wireless device comprising:
a radio frequency transceiver; a memory device storing a set of instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory device (Figure 14, memory system 1412 and processing subsystem 1410), wherein the set of instructions when executed by the processor causes the STA to:
encode source data using an error correcting encoding to generate encoded bits (incoming (source data) is LDPC and BCC encoded and parsed into sub-blocks; Paragraphs 93 and 95, see also Paragraphs 101-102 (Figures 6 and 8)),
generate a plurality of sub-blocks based on the encoded bits (incoming (source data) is BCC encoded and parsed into sub-blocks (i.e. generating sub-blocks); Paragraph 95, see also Paragraphs 101-102 (Figures 6 and 8)),
determine an assignment of the plurality of sub-blocks to a plurality of resource unit groups and wirelessly transmit the plurality of sub-blocks in the plurality of resource unit groups according to the assignment of the plurality of sub-blocks to the plurality of resource unit groups (the sub-blocks are mapped (i.e. assigned) to resource units (Paragraphs 94-97, see also Figures 6 and 8. The various resource units are transmitted; Paragraph 93).
While Wu talks about gain, Wu does not expressly disclose assignments of sub-blocks to the resource unit groups is based on the gains of the resource unit groups. Xin teaches LDPC tone mappers for mapping encoded data subcarriers and tone mapping defined for RUs within a subblock; Paragraphs 90-92 (Figure 1). The Wi-Fi apparatus can shuffle encoded data for subcarriers which improves the gain; Paragraph 124. Because this shuffling is done to directly improve gain, this is viewed as the mapping/assigning is done with respect to determined gain values.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wu to include using gain information to map/assign sub-blocks/RUs as taught by Xin.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can improve the gain as taught by Xin; Paragraph 124.
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the plurality of sub-blocks is generated based on partitioning the encoded bits into sub-blocks (incoming (source data) is BCC encoded and parsed into sub-blocks (i.e. generating sub-blocks); Paragraph 95, see also Paragraphs 101-102 (Figures 6 and 8)).
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches the plurality of sub-blocks is generated based on repeating at least some of the encoded bits into multiple sub-blocks (incoming (source data) is BCC encoded and parsed into sub-blocks (i.e. generating sub-blocks); Paragraph 95, see also Paragraphs 101-102 (Figures 6 and 8 which shows the encoded bits spread over a plurality of sub-blocks (1 and 2)).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches the sub-blocks include a first and second sub-block of different sizes (Paragraphs 101 and 103 teaches large size sub-blocks thus there is large and small size sub-blocks).
Regarding claim 5, while Wu talks about gain, Wu does not expressly disclose determining channel gains and the assignment of sub-blocks to the resource unit groups is based on the gains of the resource unit groups. Xin teaches LDPC tone mappers for mapping encoded data subcarriers and tone mapping defined for RUs within a subblock; Paragraphs 90-92 (Figure 1). The Wi-Fi apparatus can shuffle encoded data for subcarriers which improves the gain; Paragraph 124. Because this shuffling is done to directly improve gain, this is viewed as the mapping/assigning is done with respect to determined gain values.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wu to include using gain information to map/assign sub-blocks/RUs as taught by Xin.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can improve the gain as taught by Xin; Paragraph 124.
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches the plurality of RU groups include 4 groups with 40MHz (there are a plurality of RU groups (i.e. 4 groups) and they can be 40MHz; Paragraph 103).
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches the plurality of RU groups has a bandwidth that is a multiple of 20MHz (Paragraph 91 shows 20, 40, 80MHz).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Xin and further in view of Vermani et al. “Vermani” US 2019/0081664.
Regarding claim 11, While Wu teaches determining Rus, Wu does not expressly disclose transmitting NDP to an access point to allow the AP to determine channel gains; however, Vermani teaches based on NDPs of the STAs, the gain state can be known/impacted for the measuring AP; Paragraph 141. Thus one can see there is an AP that measures information which includes the gain state with respect to NDPs from the stations).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wu to include measuring gain information in response to received NDPs as taught by Vermani.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that AP can correct gain states if needed as taught by Vermani; Paragraph 141.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Xin and further in view of Viger et al. “Viger” US 2022/0264652.
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches there are a combination of RU that could be non-contiguous; however, Wu does not expressly disclose non-contiguous use with the RUs. Viger teaches the use of NDP frames and non-contiguous subcarriers or tones; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wu to expressly disclose the use of non-contiguous resource units as taught by Viger.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can utilize contiguous and non-contiguous tones/subcarriers with shorter payloads as taught by Viger; Paragraph 157.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach or suggest the amended limitation because the office conflates the objective with the means by which the objective is achieved. Just because the shuffling is to improve frequency diversity gain does not mean that frequency diversity gain is used to perform the shuffling itself. Applicant points to Figure 11 of Xin which shows duplicate encoded data subcarriers being shuffled but states Xin is silent with respect to the shuffling being generated using the channel access gains of the 996-tone RUs.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims “using channel gains of the plurality of resource unit groups” simply means the RUs have gains associated with them, thus when the encoded bits in sub-blocks 1-4 are assigned, they are assigned “using the gains” because the RUs have a gain associated with them (see applicant’s figure 13 and published paragraph 109). In other words, as long as the RUs are tied to gain, that is all that is needed. Why or how the assignments take place based on the gain is not claimed in claim 1. Therefore, broadly speaking, as long as the sub-blocks and RUs are tied to gain, that is all that is needed.
Turning now to Xin, Xin teaches mapping encoded data subcarriers and tone mapping defined for RUs within a subblock; Paragraphs 90-92 (Figure 1). Thus, sub-blocks and RUs are mapped/assigned. Since the apparatus shuffles encoded data for subcarriers which improves the gain; Paragraph 124, this means the RUs and sub-blocks have gain values associated therewith. Therefore, the claims stand properly rejected.
As noted above, the claim does not state how the gain impacts the assignment. Claim 6 of the instant claims clearly defines how the channel gain impacts the assignments, thus the Examiner suggests rolling claim 6, and any intervening claims, into the independent claims to place the case in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights