DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present U.S. non-provisional application is being examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA . The present U.S. non-provisional application, filed on April 24, 2024, is a continuation of a prior U.S. non-provisional application, filed on November 10, 2020, which is a continuation of a prior U.S. non-provisional application, filed on October 22, 2019, which is a continuation of a prior U.S. non-provisional application, filed on January 28, 2019, which is a continuation of a prior U.S. non-provisional application, filed on August 4, 2015, and claims priority to foreign applications, filed on June 30, 2015 and August 11, 2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 24, 2024 were filed before the mailing date of a first Office action in the present U.S. non-provisional application, in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be considered as allowable if made to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action. The claimed invention is neither anticipated by the prior art of record, nor considered as obvious in view thereof to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Oteri et al. (US 2018/0205442 A1) provides intervening prior art disclosure considered as relevant to the subject matter of the claimed invention, such as transmitting, to at least one station (STA), an announcement frame including at least one STA information each indicating one of the at least one STA and at least one partial bandwidth information each indicating at least one frequency resource unit; transmitting, to the at least one STA, a training frame; transmitting, to the at least one STA, a polling frame; receiving, from the at least one STA, feedback information for the at least one partial bandwidth information indicated by the announcement frame, wherein the feedback information is generated based on the training frame and is received in response to the polling frame (Oteri, paras. [0221], [0223], “…FIG. 20B shows an example of interaction between a transmitter STA, an AP and multiple receiver STAs. An NDPA frame and CSI feedback frames may be modified. […] Multiuser RU based CSI training and feedback may be implemented, for example, according to one or more of the following. An AP may acquire the media and may transmit an NDPA frame to a group of STAs, which may be followed by a NDP frame. The AP may indicate the request of RU based CSI feedback and detailed feedback mode, for example, in the NDPA frame. STAs may detect the NDPA frame and may prepare the RU based CSI feedback accordingly. According to the feedback mode, the STAs, e.g., based on the feedback mode, may transmit the feedback frame immediately after the NDP frame or may transmit the feedback frame in a delayed mode.”) However, Oteri et al. does not provide sufficient prior art disclosure for the claimed invention, such as transmitting, to the at least one STA, a multiple-user (MU) physical protocol data unit (PPDU) based on the feedback information, wherein the MU PPDU includes a HEW-SIG-A field and a HEW-SIG-B field, and frequency resource unit allocation information is included in the HEW-SIG-B field, and wherein the training frame is not based on a channel information between the AP and the at least one STA (cf. Specification, paras. [0022], [0051], “Also, according to embodiments, it is possible to effectively decrease feedback overhead between a communication apparatus and STAs by transmitting a beamforming training (BF-T) frame using a beamforming matrix determined regardless of channel information between the communication apparatus and the STAs…”) Accordingly, the claimed invention is neither anticipated by the prior art of record, nor considered as obvious in view thereof to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,675 in view of Keusgen et al. (US 2012/0230380 A1). The claims at issue for consideration are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the reference claims (cf. reference claim 2) except for wherein the training frame is not based on a channel information between the AP and the at least one STA (Keusgen, paras. [0012], [0019], “…For determining suitable beamforming vectors, known methods without explicit channel knowledge provide for a training phase, during which test signals or training symbols are transmitted and evaluated within a training frame at different suitably selected beamforming vectors (see e.g. ECMA-387 Standard: High Rate 60 GHz PHY, MAC and HDMI PAL, 2008, Ecma International). The temporal sequence of beamforming adjustments may be described by a matrix (a training matrix), which consists of the respective beamforming vectors. In a bidirectional radio system using two-way beamforming in the transmitting and receiving branches, transmission of training frames is performed in both directions. Optimizing the beamforming vectors is obtained by repeating the alternating transmission several times and iteratively adapting the beamforming vectors.”) Accordingly, the present claims are considered as obvious variants of the reference claims to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,205 in view of Keusgen et al. (US 2012/0230380 A1). The claims at issue for consideration are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the reference claims (cf. reference claims 2-4) except for wherein the training frame is not based on a channel information between the AP and the at least one STA (Keusgen, paras. [0012], [0019], Id.) Accordingly, the present claims are considered as obvious variants of the reference claims to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,506,453 in view of Keusgen et al. (US 2012/0230380 A1). The claims at issue for consideration are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the reference claims (cf. reference claims 2-4) except for wherein the training frame is not based on a channel information between the AP and the at least one STA (Keusgen, paras. [0012], [0019], Id.) Accordingly, the present claims are considered as obvious variants of the reference claims to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,753 in view of Keusgen et al. (US 2012/0230380 A1). The claims at issue for consideration are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the reference claims (cf. reference claims 4-6) except for wherein the training frame is not based on a channel information between the AP and the at least one STA (Keusgen, paras. [0012], [0019], Id.) Accordingly, the present claims are considered as obvious variants of the reference claims to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground(s) provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. MPEP 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , MPEP 2159. MPEP 706.02(l)(1)-706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used (www.uspto.gov/forms/). The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using the eTerminal Disclaimer website. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For additional information about eTerminal Disclaimers, see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (PTO-1449, PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the subject matter of the present U.S. non-provisional application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy J. Weidner whose telephone number is (571) 270-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM, Eastern Standard Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing by using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) form provided at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz R. Sheikh can be reached on (571) 272-3795. 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. In order 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 more 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.
/TIMOTHY J WEIDNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476