DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Reconsideration filed 7/7/2026. Claims 1-30 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 filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1 and similar limitations of independent claims 10, 16, and 25, Applicant argues that cited prior art Lim et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0188304 A1) fails to anticipate the limitation stating “transmit an indication that specifies activation of multiple RU (M-RU) MU communications”. Applicant argues that the signaling taught by Lim et al. is different from the claimed “activation” of M-RU MU communications. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the teachings of Lim et al. with respect to this claim limitation.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the teaching of Lim et al. using a most significant bit (MSB) in an 8-bit RU allocation filed to indicate that whether resource allocation is for a single RU (SRU), i.e. not including multiple RU aggregation, or for a multiple RU (MRU) including multiple RU aggregation (See paragraphs 217-223 and paragraph 237 of Lim et al.) is different from and fails to anticipate the claimed “indication that specifies activation” of M-RU MU communications. Applicant’s arguments do not provide any specifics regarding exactly how the claimed “activation” is different from the indication taught by Lim et al. beyond the conclusion the indication of Lim et al. is different from and fails to anticipate the claimed activation. Applicant’s specification describes “activation” and “deactivation” of the M-RU MU communications, that may be used control the number of RUs allocated to the devices. The specification does not provide any further specific details regarding steps or functions performed to activate or deactivate the M-RU MU communications. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of “activation” and “deactivation” of the M-RU MU communications in the Applicant’s specification, would interpret the claimed “activation” to the M-RU MU communications merely include the control over the number of RUs that may be allocated to the device. The MSB of Lim et al. performs this same function by indicating whether or not multiple RU aggregation is used to distinguish the use MRU from SRU. Thus, when MRU is indicated in Lim et al., this is equivalent to “activation” of M-RU MU communications. Therefore, the rejection based on the teachings of Lim et al. are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 10-11, 13, 16-18, 20, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0188304 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 16, Lim et al. discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless communication device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured, individually or collectively, to cause the first wireless communication device to perform a method for wireless communication (See the abstract, paragraphs 47-48, paragraphs 53-55, and Figure 1 of Lim et al. for reference to a first station, which is a first wireless communication device that may be an AP, comprising a memory and a processor coupled to the memory performing an operation intended by the AP including wirelessly transmitting a PPDU). Lim et al. also discloses communicating with a second wireless communication device using a single resource unit (RU) allocation from multiple RUs in a first multiple user (MU) transmission, the single RU allocation being allocated to the second wireless communication device (See paragraphs 47-48, paragraph 134, paragraphs 217-223, paragraph 237, and Figures 1 and 10 of Lim et al. for reference to the AP communicating with a second station, which is a second wireless communication device that may be a non-AP STA, wherein the communication may be a multi-user mode PPDU using a single-RU, SRU, allocation from multiple RUs based on a MSB 1 bit of RU allocation bit set to 0 used to indicate a single RU allocation). Lim et al. further discloses transmitting an indication that specifies activation of multiple RU (M-RU) MU communications (See paragraphs 217-223 and paragraph 237, of Lim et al. for reference to transmitting another MU PPDU having a MSB 1 bit of RU allocation bit set to 1 used to indicate a multiple RU allocation, which is an activation of MRU MU communications). Lim et al. also discloses communicating with the second wireless communication device using the M-RU MU communications based at least in part on the activation of the M-RU MU communications, the M-RU communications comprising at least one of at least two RUs of a second MU transmission that are allocated to the second wireless communication device (See paragraph 50, paragraphs 86-89, paragraphs 217-223, paragraph 237, and Figures 1 and 4 of Lim et al. for reference to the AP communicating with the non-AP STA using a PPDU having a data field including user data allocated based on the MSB 1 bit of RU allocation bit set to 1 used to indicate a multiple RU allocation, such that the communication of data is via at least one of the allocated MRUs).
With respect to claims 2 and 17, Lim et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: change, based at least in part on the activation, at least one of: a number of RUs allocated to the second wireless communication device, or one or more transmission parameters associated with the M-RU MU communications (See paragraphs 217-223 and paragraph 237, of Lim et al. for reference to changing the number or RUs allocated to the non-AP STA based on the MSB 1 bit of RU allocation, such that a single RU is allocated with the bit is set to 0 and multiple RUs are allocated with the bit is set to 1).
With respect to claims 3 and 18, Lim et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: indicate, to the second wireless communication device, deactivation of the M-RU MU communications (See paragraphs 217-223 and paragraph 237, of Lim et al. for reference to activation or deactivation of MRU allocation of the MU PPDU being indicated based on the MSB 1 bit of RU allocation, such that MRU allocation is deactivated when the MSB 1 bit of RU allocation is set to 0 indicating a SRU allocation).
With respect to claims 5 and 20, Lim et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) that indicates that the at least two RUs associated with the second MU transmission are allocated to the second wireless communication device communications (See paragraphs 86-89, paragraphs 217-223, paragraph 237, and Figure 4, of Lim et al. for reference to the AP transmitting a MU PPDU with a MSB 1 bit of RU allocation set to 1 indicating that multiple RUs are allocated to non-AP STA).
With respect to claims 10 and 25, Lim et al. discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a second wireless communication device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the second wireless communication device to perform a method for wireless communication (See the abstract, paragraphs 47-48, paragraphs 56-57, and Figure 1 of Lim et al. for reference to a second station, which is a second wireless communication device that may be a non-AP STA, comprising a memory and a processor coupled to the memory performing an operation intended by the AP including wirelessly receiving a PPDU). Lim et al. also discloses communicating with a first wireless communication device using a single resource unit (RU) allocation from multiple RUs included in a first multiple user (MU) transmission, the single RU allocation being allocated to the second wireless communication device (See paragraphs 47-48, paragraph 134, paragraphs 217-223, paragraph 237, and Figures 1 and 10 of Lim et al. for reference to the non-AP STA communicating with a first station, which is a second wireless communication device that may be an AP, wherein the communication may be a multi-user mode PPDU using a single-RU, SRU, allocation from multiple RUs based on a MSB 1 bit of RU allocation bit set to 0 used to indicate a single RU allocation). Lim et al. further discloses receiving a first indication that specifies activation of multiple RU (M-RU) MU communications (See paragraphs 217-223 and paragraph 237, of Lim et al. for reference to receiving another MU PPDU having a MSB 1 bit of RU allocation bit set to 1 used to indicate a multiple RU allocation, which is an activation of MRU MU communications). Lim et al. also discloses communicating with the first wireless communication device using the M-RU MU communications based at least in part on the activation of the M-RU MU communications, the M-RU communications comprising at least one of at least two RUs of a second MU transmission that are allocated to the second wireless communication device (See paragraph 50, paragraphs 86-89, paragraphs 217-223, paragraph 237, and Figures 1 and 4 of Lim et al. for reference to the AP communicating with the non-AP STA using a PPDU having a data field including user data allocated based on the MSB 1 bit of RU allocation bit set to 1 used to indicate a multiple RU allocation, such that the communication of data is via at least one of the allocated MRUs).
With respect to claims 11 and 26, Lim et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the second wireless communication device to: receive a second indication that specifies deactivation of the M-RU MU communications (See paragraphs 217-223 and paragraph 237, of Lim et al. for reference to activation or deactivation of MRU allocation of the MU PPDU being indicated based on the MSB 1 bit of RU allocation, such that MRU allocation is deactivated when the MSB 1 bit of RU allocation is set to 0 indicating a SRU allocation).
With respect to claims 13 and 28, Lim et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the second wireless communication device to: receive a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) that indicates that the at least two RUs associated with the second MU transmission are allocated to the second wireless communication device (See paragraphs 86-89, paragraphs 217-223, paragraph 237, and Figure 4, of Lim et al. for reference to the non-AP STA receiving a MU PPDU with a MSB 1 bit of RU allocation set to 1 indicating that multiple RUs are allocated to non-AP STA).
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 6-9, 14-15, 21-24, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0081649 A1).
With respect to claims 6 and 21, Lim et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: obtain M-RU capability information associated with the second wireless communication device, wherein transmitting the indication that specifies activation of the M-RU MU communications is based at least in part on the M-RU capability information.
With respect to claims 7 and 22, Lim et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the M-RU capability information indicates the second wireless communication device supports the M-RU MU communications.
With respect to claims 8 and 23, Lim et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: select a number of RUs associated with the second MU transmission to allocate to the second wireless communication device based at least in part on the M-RU capability information.
With respect to claims 9 and 24, Lim et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the M-RU capability information indicates device capabilities associated with at least one of: duplicate transmission support, a maximum number of decodable physical layer service data units (PSDUs), or a performance condition.
With further respect to claims 6-9 and 21-24, Jang et al., in the field of communications, discloses an AP receiving an indication of a MRU capability of a STA indicating whether or not the STA has the MRU capability, such that the AP allocates multiple RUs to a STA having the MRU capability and does not allocate multiple RUs to a STA not having the MRU capability thereby selecting a number of RUs allocated to the STA based on the MRU capability, wherein the MRU capability further indicates a transmission capability when a RU of the multiple RUs is in a busy state, which is a performance condition (See paragraphs 355-361 and Figure 36 of Jang et al.). Using an indicated MRU capability of a STA to determine RU allocation of the STA has the advantage of only allowing allocation of MRUs to stations capability of communicating via MRUs. 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 Jang et al., to combine using an indicated MRU capability of a STA to determine RU allocation of the STA, as suggested by Jang et al., within the system and method of Lim et al., with the motivation being to only allow allocation of MRUs to stations capability of communicating via MRUs.
With respect to claims 14 and 29, Lim et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the second wireless communication device to: transmit M-RU capability information that indicates support for the M-RU MU communications.
With respect to claims 15 and 30, Lim et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the M-RU capability information indicates device capabilities associated with at least one of: duplicate transmission support, a maximum number of decodable physical layer service data units (PSDUs), or a performance condition.
With further respect to claims 14-15 and 29-30, Jang et al., in the field of communications, discloses a STA transmitting an indication of a MRU capability of the STA to the AP indicating whether or not the STA has the MRU capability, such that the AP allocates multiple RUs to a STA having the MRU capability and does not allocate multiple RUs to a STA not having the MRU capability, wherein the MRU capability further indicates a transmission capability when a RU of the multiple RUs is in a busy state, which is a performance condition (See paragraphs 355-361 and Figure 36 of Jang et al.). Using an indicated MRU capability of a STA to determine RU allocation of the STA has the advantage of only allowing allocation of MRUs to stations capability of communicating via MRUs. 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 Jang et al., to combine using an indicated MRU capability of a STA to determine RU allocation of the STA, as suggested by Jang et al., within the system and method of Lim et al., with the motivation being to only allow allocation of MRUs to stations capability of communicating via MRUs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12, 19, and 27 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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