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 .
Examiner’s Remarks
Based on the newly filed amendment of September 3, 2026, Examiner formally withdraws the claims objections and the USC 102 rejection. Examiner reviewed the claims and a new USC 101 and 112 rejection is set forth infra based on the newly submitted amendment. Based on the newly added limitations to the claims, this action is made final at this time.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. This action is made final for reasons set forth in this action.
Restriction Remarks
This office action is based on the new amendment of September 3, 2026. Examiner asserts that the newly added claims are completely different in scope to the originally examined claims in the non-final office action of June 5, 2026. See below:
Restriction by original presentation
This is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on September 3, 2026.
Newly submitted claims 1, 3, 19 and 21-28 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: directed to receive, from an access point (AP) involved in a multi-AP coordinated uplink (UL) transmission, a trigger frame, wherein the trigger frame comprises: a Common Information field comprising: a Trigger Type subfield, a UL Length subfield, a More Trigger Frames (TF) subfield, a Carrier Sense (CS) Required subfield, a UL Bandwidth (BW) subfield, a Guard interval (GI) And High efficiency/ Extremely high throughput (HE/EHT)-Long Training field (LTF) Symbols subfield, a first Reserved subfield, a Number Of HE/EHT-LTF Symbols subfield, a second Reserved subfield, a Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Extra Symbol Segment subfield, an AP transmission (TX) Power subfield, a Pre- Forward Error Correction (FEC) Padding Factor subfield, a Packet Extension (PE) Disambiguity subfield, a UL Spatial Reuse subfield, a third Reserved subfield, an HE/EHT P160 subfield, a Special User Information Field Flag, an EHT Reserved subfield, a fourth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent Common information subfield; and a User Information field comprising: an association identifier (AID) 12 subfield occupying 12 bits spanning bits BO through B11 in the User Information field, a Physical (PHY) Version Identifier (ID) subfield, a UL BW Extension subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 1 subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 2 subfield, a Universal SIGNAL (U-SIG) Disregard and Validate subfield, a fifth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent User information subfield” which appears to be a one step data structure.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presentedinvention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation forprosecution on the merits.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 19 and 21-28 should be withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
For purposes for compact prosecution, Examiner will review the amendment and examine issues based on USC 101 and 112 issues, only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 3, 19, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”.
Claims 1, 3, 19 and 21-28 are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example.
The apparatus and the method independent claims 1 and 19 recites limitation, “receive, from an access point (AP) involved in a multi-AP coordinated uplink (UL) transmission, a trigger frame, comprises This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:
A station (STA), comprising: a memory configured to store instructions, a transceiver; and a processor coupled to the memory and the transceiver, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the STA to: receive, from an access point (AP) involved in a multi-AP coordinated uplink (UL) transmission, a trigger frame, wherein the trigger frame comprises: a Common Information field comprising: a Trigger Type subfield, a UL Length subfield, a More Trigger Frames (TF) subfield, a Carrier Sense (CS) Required subfield, a UL Bandwidth (BW) subfield, a Guard interval (GI) And High efficiency/ Extremely high throughput (HE/EHT)-Long Training field (LTF) Symbols subfield, a first Reserved subfield, a Number Of HE/EHT-LTF Symbols subfield, a second Reserved subfield, a Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Extra Symbol Segment subfield, an AP transmission (TX) Power subfield, a Pre- Forward Error Correction (FEC) Padding Factor subfield, a Packet Extension (PE) Disambiguity subfield, a UL Spatial Reuse subfield, a third Reserved subfield, an HE/EHT P160 subfield, a Special User Information Field Flag, an EHT Reserved subfield, a fourth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent Common information subfield; and a User Information field comprising: an association identifier (AID) 12 subfield occupying 12 bits spanning bits BO through B11 in the User Information field, a Physical (PHY) Version Identifier (ID) subfield, a UL BW Extension subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 1 subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 2 subfield, a Universal SIGNAL (U-SIG) Disregard and Validate subfield, a fifth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent User information subfield.”
Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites, “receive, from an access point (AP) involved in a multi-AP coordinated uplink (UL) transmission, a trigger frame, wherein the trigger frame comprises: a Common Information field comprising:a Trigger Type subfield, a UL Length subfield, a More Trigger Frames (TF) subfield, a Carrier Sense (CS) Required subfield, a UL Bandwidth (BW) subfield, a Guard interval (GI) And High efficiency/ Extremely high throughput (HE/EHT)-Long Training field (LTF) Symbols subfield, a first Reserved subfield, a Number Of HE/EHT-LTF Symbols subfield, a second Reserved subfield, a Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Extra Symbol Segment subfield, an AP transmission (TX) Power subfield, a Pre- Forward Error Correction (FEC) Padding Factor subfield, a Packet Extension (PE) Disambiguity subfield, a UL Spatial Reuse subfield, a third Reserved subfield, an HE/EHT P160 subfield, a Special User Information Field Flag, an EHT Reserved subfield, a fourth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent Common information subfield; and a User Information field comprising: an association identifier (AID) 12 subfield occupying 12 bits spanning bits BO through B11 in the User Information field, a Physical (PHY) Version Identifier (ID) subfield, a UL BW Extension subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 1 subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 2 subfield, a Universal SIGNAL (U-SIG) Disregard and Validate subfield, a fifth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent User information subfield.”
The receive step recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mathematical process of indicates a trigger frame, wherein the trigger frame comprises: a Common Information field comprising: a Trigger Type subfield, a UL Length subfield, a More Trigger Frames (TF) subfield, a Carrier Sense (CS) Required subfield, a UL Bandwidth (BW) subfield, a Guard interval (GI) And High efficiency/ Extremely high throughput (HE/EHT)-Long Training field (LTF) Symbols subfield, a first Reserved subfield, a Number Of HE/EHT-LTF Symbols subfield, a second Reserved subfield, a Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Extra Symbol Segment subfield, an AP transmission (TX) Power subfield, a Pre- Forward Error Correction (FEC) Padding Factor subfield, a Packet Extension (PE) Disambiguity subfield, a UL Spatial Reuse subfield, a third Reserved subfield, an HE/EHT P160 subfield, a Special User Information Field Flag, an EHT Reserved subfield, a fourth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent Common information subfield; and a User Information field comprising: an association identifier (AID) 12 subfield occupying 12 bits spanning bits BO through B11 in the User Information field, a Physical (PHY) Version Identifier (ID) subfield, a UL BW Extension subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 1 subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 2 subfield, a Universal SIGNAL (U-SIG) Disregard and Validate subfield, a fifth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent User information subfield” where claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, etc., (See specifically MPEP 2106.05 (f) Sec 1. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitations recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”/” Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as recited in Claims 1, 3, 19 and 21-28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3, 19 and 21-28 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase, “receive, from an access point (AP) involved in a multi-AP coordinated uplink (UL) transmission, a trigger frame, wherein the trigger frame comprises: a Common Information field comprising: a Trigger Type subfield, a UL Length subfield, a More Trigger Frames (TF) subfield, a Carrier Sense (CS) Required subfield, a UL Bandwidth (BW) subfield, a Guard interval (GI) And High efficiency/ Extremely high throughput (HE/EHT)-Long Training field (LTF) Symbols subfield, a first Reserved subfield, a Number Of HE/EHT-LTF Symbols subfield, a second Reserved subfield, a Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Extra Symbol Segment subfield, an AP transmission (TX) Power subfield, a Pre- Forward Error Correction (FEC) Padding Factor subfield, a Packet Extension (PE) Disambiguity subfield, a UL Spatial Reuse subfield, a third Reserved subfield, an HE/EHT P160 subfield, a Special User Information Field Flag, an EHT Reserved subfield, a fourth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent Common information subfield; and a User Information field comprising: an association identifier (AID) 12 subfield occupying 12 bits spanning bits BO through B11 in the User Information field, a Physical (PHY) Version Identifier (ID) subfield, a UL BW Extension subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 1 subfield, an EHT Spatial Reuse 2 subfield, a Universal SIGNAL (U-SIG) Disregard and Validate subfield, a fifth Reserved subfield, and a Trigger Dependent User information subfield” appears to be a one-step data structure with numerous fields and subfields.
Examiner is unclear as to what the Applicant is claiming as novel. There is no transformation in the one-step claim to indicate that something new and novel is occurring. Examiner cannot understand what the Applicant is trying to achieve in this one-step claim.
Explanation, clarification and correction is required.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This art had already been cited in the Non-final office action.
Chitrakar et al., (WO 2018084034 A1), “Communication Apparatus and Communication Method” (May 11, 2018) discloses layer Data Unit that includes a duration field, the duration field including duration information that indicates a duration of time during which the communication apparatus is prohibited from transmitting a high efficiency (HE) trigger-based (TB) PHY layer Data Unit. Physical (PHY) layer circuitry in operation, issues a PHY-CCA (clear channel assessment) primitive parameter. Media Access Control (MAC) circuitry in operation, updates a Network Allocation Vector (NAV) value based on the duration information when the indicated duration is greater than a current NAV value and when it is determined that the communication apparatus is not a targeted recipient of the received PHY layer Data Unit. The MAC circuitry in operation, determines busy/idle state of at least one subchannel. The MAC circuitry, in operation, controls transmission of the HE TB PHY layer Data Unit.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
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.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov
