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 03/22/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations of claims 2-5 and 20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language: “a communication unit configured to transmit”.
Claim limitations of claims 17 and 18 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language: “a processing unit configured to obtain”.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2-5, 17, 18 and 20 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 20, a review of the specification shows that there is no corresponding structure for the communication unit described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, a review of the specification shows that there is no corresponding structure for the processing unit described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 20, Applicant’s specification discusses an “communication unit” on fig. 18 and 19, and paragraphs 139-142. However, these paragraphs do not describe any structure for an “communication unit”.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Applicant’s specification discussed a “processing unit” in fig. 18 and 19, and paragraphs 147 and 148. However, these paragraphs do not describe any structure for a “processing unit”.
Therefore, the claimed units that is configured to perform the recited functions were not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 6-16 and 19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements, “communication unit” and “processing unit” in claims 2-5, 17, 18 and 20 are elements that invoke 35 U.S.C 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, thus these are indefinite.
Claims 6-16 and 19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naribole et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0289499).
Regarding claim 1, Naribole et al discloses a wireless communication method, applied in a first Access Point (AP) (paragraph 6, coordinating AP) initiating a multi-AP coordination, the wireless communication method comprising: transmitting a first frame to a second AP, the first frame being used for inquiring about whether the second AP intends to participate in the multi-AP coordination (paragraph 6 discloses response to the advertisement to participate in multi-AP coordination), wherein at least a part of a second operating channel of the second AP overlaps with a first operating channel of the first AP (paragraph 11 discloses the shared AP operating on the same 80 MHz channel corresponds to operating channels overlapping).
Regarding claim 2, Naribole et al discloses a wireless communication apparatus, applied in a first Access Point (AP) initiating a multi-AP coordination, the wireless communication apparatus comprising: a communication unit configured to transmit a first frame to a second AP, the first frame being used for inquiring about whether the second AP intends to participate in the multi-AP coordination (paragraph 6 discloses response to the advertisement to participate in multi-AP coordination), wherein at least a part of a second operating channel of the second AP overlaps with a first operating channel of the first AP (paragraph 11 discloses the shared AP operating on the same 80 MHz channel corresponds to operating channels overlapping).
Regarding claim 15, Naribole et al discloses at least a part of the second operating channel overlapping with the first operating channel comprises any of: the second operating channel being included in the first operating channel; the second operating channel being the same as the first operating channel; the second operating channel being inclusive of the first operating channel of the sharing AP; or the second operating channel partially overlaps with but not included in the first operating channel (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 16, Naribole et al discloses at least a part of the second operating channel overlapping with the first operating channel comprises any of: the second operating channel being included in the first operating channel; or the second operating channel being the same as the first operating channel (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 17, Naribole et al discloses a processing unit configured to obtain the second operating channel (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 18, Naribole et al discloses the processing unit is further configured to: obtain information on the second operating channel from at least one of Beacon frames, broadcast Probe Response frames, Channel Switch Announcement frames, Extended Channel Switch Announcement frames, and Operating Mode Notification frames transmitted by the second AP (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 19, Naribole et al discloses the information on the second operating channel is included in at least one of a High Throughout (HT) Operation element, a Very High Throughput (VHT) Operation element, a High Efficiency (HE) Operation element, an Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Operation element, a Neighbor Report element, a Reduced Neighbor Report element, a Channel Switch Announcement element, an Extended Channel Switch Announcement element, and an Operating Mode Notification element (paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 20, Naribole et al discloses a wireless communication apparatus, applied in a second Access Point (AP), the wireless communication apparatus comprising: a communication unit (paragraph 6, coordination AP) configured to receive a first frame from a first AP initiating a multi-AP coordination, the first frame being used for inquiring about whether the second AP intends to participate in the multi-AP coordination (paragraph 6 discloses response to the advertisement to participate in multi-AP coordination), wherein at least a part of a second operating channel of the second AP overlaps with the first operating channel of the first AP (paragraph 11 discloses the shared AP operating on the same 80 MHz channel corresponds to operating channels overlapping).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naribole et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0289499) in view of Cherian et al (WO 2020/068385).
Regarding claim 3, Naribole et al specifically does not disclose wherein the communication unit is further configured to: transmit a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Multi-User (MU) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a first frequency portion of a coordinated transmission bandwidth, the first frequency portion being different from a second frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth, at which the second AP transmits a second EHT MU PPDU; or solicit transmission of a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Trigger based (TB) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a third frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth, the third frequency portion being different from a fourth frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth, and the second AP soliciting transmission of a second EHT TB PPDU at the fourth frequency portion. However, Cherian et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the communication unit is further configured to: transmit a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Multi-User (MU) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a first frequency portion of a coordinated transmission bandwidth, the first frequency portion being different from a second frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth, at which the second AP transmits a second EHT MU PPDU; or solicit transmission of a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Trigger based (TB) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a third frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth, the third frequency portion being different from a fourth frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth, and the second AP soliciting transmission of a second EHT TB PPDU at the fourth frequency portion (see at least paragraph 126 and 366 discloses AP to handle different bandwidth capabilities). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Cherian et al into the system of Naribole et al, for purpose of using coordinated communications with the second AP in a HE TB PPDU format.
Regarding claim 6, Naribole et al discloses each frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth comprises one or more 80 MHz frequency subblocks (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 12, Cherian et al discloses each of the first EHT MU PPDU and the second EHT MU PPDU has a same number of EHT-SIGNAL (SIG) symbols, a same Guard Interval (GI), a same EHT-Long Training Field (LTF) type, a same number of EHT-LTF symbols, and a same duration of Data field and Packet Extension (PE) field; or each of the first EHT TB PPDU and the second EHT TB PPDU has a same GI, a same EHT-LTF type, a same number of EHT-LTF symbols, and a same duration of Data field and PE field (see at least paragraph 164-164). Same motivation as claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Cherian et al discloses EHT-SIG fields of the first EHT MU PPDU and the second EHT MU PPDU have the same content, and/or U-SIG fields of the first EHT MU PPDU and the second EHT MU PPDU have the same content (see at least paragraph 164-165). Same motivation as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, Cherian et al discloses U-SIG fields of the first EHT TB PPDU and the second EHT TB PPDU have the same content (see at least paragraph 164-165). Same motivation as claim 3.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naribole et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0289499) in view of Park et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0140987).
Regarding claim 4, Naribole et al specifically do not disclose the communication unit is further configured to: transmit a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Multi-User (MU) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a single Resource Unit (RU) or a single Multiple Resource Unit (MRU) that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within a first frequency portion of a coordinated transmission bandwidth, at which the second AP transmits a second EHT MU PPDU; or solicit transmission of a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Trigger Based (TB) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a single RU or a single MRU that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within a second frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth, the second AP soliciting transmission of a second EHT TB PPDU at the single RU or the single MRU that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within the second frequency portion. However, Park et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the communication unit is further configured to: transmit a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Multi-User (MU) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a single Resource Unit (RU) or a single Multiple Resource Unit (MRU) that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within a first frequency portion of a coordinated transmission bandwidth, at which the second AP transmits a second EHT MU PPDU; or solicit transmission of a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Trigger Based (TB) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a single RU or a single MRU that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within a second frequency portion of the coordinated transmission bandwidth, the second AP soliciting transmission of a second EHT TB PPDU at the single RU or the single MRU that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within the second frequency portion (see at least paragraph 214 discloses AP coordinated transmission; paragraph 104 and 106 discloses transmission of first trigger frame and second trigger frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Park et al into the system of Naribole et al and Cherian, for purpose of performing coordinated multi-AP transmission.
Regarding claim 5, Park et al discloses the communication unit is further configured to: transmit a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Multi-User (MU) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a single Resource Unit (RU) or a single Multiple Resource Unit (MRU) that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within a coordinated transmission bandwidth, at which the second AP transmits a second EHT MU PPDU; or solicit transmission of a first Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Trigger Based (TB) Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) at a single RU or a single MRU that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within the coordinated transmission bandwidth, the second AP soliciting transmission of a second EHT TB PPDU at the single RU or the single MRU that occupies all the non-punctured 20 MHz channels within the coordinated transmission bandwidth (see at least paragraph 214 discloses AP coordinated transmission; paragraph 104 and 106 discloses transmission of first trigger frame and second trigger frame). Same motivation as claim 4.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naribole et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0289499) in view of Cherian et al (WO 2020/068385) further in view of Park et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0140987).
Regarding claim 7, Naribole et al and Cherian et al specifically do not disclose the coordinated transmission bandwidth is 320 MHz and comprises two frequency portions each comprising a different 160 MHz channel. However, Park et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the coordinated transmission bandwidth is 320 MHz and comprises two frequency portions each comprising a different 160 MHz channel (see at least paragraphs 104 and 199). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Park et al into the system of Naribole et al and Cherian, for purpose of performing coordinated multi-AP transmission.
Regarding claim 8, Park et al discloses the coordinated transmission bandwidth is 320 MHz and comprises three frequency portions, the three frequency portions comprising two frequency portions being two different 80 MHz frequency subblocks in a same 160 MHz channel, respectively, and one frequency portion comprising the other 160 MHz channel (see at least paragraph 104 and 199). Same motivation as claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Park et al discloses the coordinated transmission bandwidth is 320 MHz and comprises four frequency portions each comprising a different 80 MHz frequency subblock (see at least paragraph 104). Same motivation as claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Park et al discloses the coordinated transmission bandwidth is 320 MHz and comprises a punctured 80 MHz frequency subblock and three frequency portions each comprising a different 80 MHz frequency subblock (see at least paragraph 104). Same motivation as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to show a method, which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Shafin et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0408355) directed toward TWT coordination for multi-AP operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642