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 and Argument
1. This communication is in response to Applicant's 07/29/2026 communications in the application of Wu et al. for the "ENHANCED RANGING TECHNIQUES IN 802.11" filed 05/01/2024. This application Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63502018, filed 05/12/2023. The amendment and response have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. Applicant’s remarks and argument to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
3. In response to applicant's argument that the combination of cited references fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness. In response, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is not necessary that a “prima facie” case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for “a substantial new question of patentability” to be present as to the claim. Thus, “a substantial new question of patentability” as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications. As to the importance of the difference between “a substantial new question of patentability” and a “prima facie” case of unpatentability see generally In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 n.5, 225 USPQ 1, 4 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102. 904.02. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06 and In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
4. In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection. The Examiner first emphasizes for the record that the claims employ a broader in scope than the Applicant’s disclosure in all aspects. In addition, the Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. Since the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim limitations in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretations while determining patentability of the disclosed invention. See MPEP 2111. In other words, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). Any term that is not clearly defined in the specification must be given its plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.01. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The interpretation of the claims by their broadest reasonable interpretation reduces the possibility that, once the claims are issued, the claims are interpreted more broadly than justified. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the failure to significantly narrow definition or scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to distinctly define the claimed invention.
5. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, i.e., Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) in view of Reddy et al. (US#2026/0095882) as proposed in the office action. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
6. Applicant's argument with respect to the rejected claim 9 that the cited reference fails to teach or suggest the “ranging session with the RSTA according to the first optional preamble puncture pattern” (page 8, last paragraphs). In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, the reference are applied herein for the teaching of a system and method for enhanced NDPA frame in ranging of WIFI, according to the essential features of the claims. Applicant’s attention is directed to Fig. 5 a timing diagram illustrated measurement sounding phase of a non-trigger-based (non-TB) ranging procedure as defined in the IIEEE 802.11az standard, in which an ISTA initiates the ranging session by transmitting an NDP announcement to notify the RSTA that it will be transmitting an I2R NDP for which the RSTA should monitor (para [0106]: ranging session between STAs in wireless communications). Examiner interprets as indicating puncturing patterns by an initial station (STA) and a responder STA in relation to performing ranging, in accordance with wireless local area networks (WLANs) and Wi-Fi networks including networks operating in accordance with different versions or generations of the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. Many existing wireless ranging procedures (e.g., IEEE 802.11 az) are limited to a 160 MHz maximum ranging bandwidth. An expanded EHT ranging approach for larger bandwidths (e.g., 320 MHz) is desired. Furthermore, as seen in Fig. 1; Col. 8, lines 2-54 & Col. 29, lines 22-56 of Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) where the Later generations of IEEE 802.11 may increase the quantity of channels and techniques for modulating data via a group of channels. For example, Extremely High Throughput (EHT, which also may be referred to as XHT) may support 320 MHz channel groups (with 16 spatial streams) and enhanced modulation techniques. As related to IEEE 802.11 releases such as 802.11bk as one example, the NDP used in the ranging session illustrated by Figs. 8-10 can be an extremely high throughput (EHT) Ranging NDP. In recent 802.11 developments, improvements regarding ranging accuracy have been discussed. For example, in IEEE 802.11 releases such as 802.11bk, a 320 MHz null data packet (NDP) has been introduced to be used in ranging procedures along with a 320 MHz physical protocol data unit (PPDU) which has been introduced in IEEE 802.11 release 802.11be, as long as a number of preamble puncture patterns have been defined for 320 MHz transmission.
Since no substantial amendments have been made and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the claims are drawn to the same invention and the text of the prior art rejection can be found in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) in view of Reddy et al. (US#2026/0095882).
Regarding claim 9, the references disclose an apparatus and techniques for enhanced NDPA frame in ranging of WIFI, according to the essential features of the claim. Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) discloses a processor (see Fig. 3 for the structure of a wireless device includes processor 304) configured to cause an initiating station (ISTA) to: transmit, to a responding station (RSTA), a first indicator indicating that the ISTA supports a first set of one or more preamble puncture patterns (Fig. 12; Col. 2, lines 29-46 & Col. 31, lines 35-40: transmitting from a transmitting device to a receiving device, a first message that indicates a puncturing pattern that will be used to puncture a punctured sounding message via a wireless channel. For example, the first message may be an NDPA); receive, from the RSTA, a second indicator indicating that the RSTA supports at least one of the one or more preamble puncture patterns (Fig. 12; Col. 31, lines 47-51: receiving, from the receiving device, a feedback message that includes feedback information based on non-punctured portions of the punctured sounding message); and responsive to determining that the ISTA and RSTA support a first optional preamble puncture pattern of the one or more optional preamble puncture pattern (Fig. 13; Col. 3, lines 1-8 & Col. 29, lines 22-56: determining that the receiving device supports puncturing sounding may include receiving a punctured sounding capability indicator from the receiving device).
However, Verma reference does not disclose expressly wherein starting a ranging session with the RSTA in accordance with the first preamble puncture pattern. In the same field of endeavor, Reddy et al. (US#2026/0095882) discloses in Fig. 5 a timing diagram of an example measurement sounding phase of a non-trigger-based (non-TB) ranging procedure as defined in the IIEEE 802.11az standard, in which an ISTA initiates the ranging session by transmitting an NDP announcement to notify the RSTA that it will be transmitting an I2R NDP for which the RSTA should monitor (para [0106]: ranging session between STAs in wireless communications).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to apply Reddy’s scheduling for WIFI based positioning and hybridization with cellular based positioning into Verma’s punctured sounding and partial bandwidth feedback with the motivation being to provide a method and system for enhanced ranging techniques in IEEE 802.11 communications.
Regarding claim 10, Verma in view of Reddy teaches the apparatus of claim 9 examined above, Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) further teaches wherein at least one of the first indicator or the second indicator is indicated using at least one of a first field value or a second field value of a puncturing pattern support field of a ranging sub-element (Figs. 8, 11; Col. 20, line 54 to Col. 22, line 48 & Col. 30, lines 1 to Col. 31, line 33: null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame with field values supported puncture patterns).
Regarding claim 12, Verma in view of Reddy teaches the apparatus of claim 9 examined above, Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) further teaches wherein at least one of the first indicator or the second indicator is indicated using one or two field values of a format and bandwidth subfield associated with a ranging parameters field format (Figs. 8, 11; Col. 20, line 54 to Col. 22, line 48 & Col. 30, lines 1 to Col. 31, line 33: null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame with field values supported puncture patterns).
Regarding claim 13, Verma in view of Reddy teaches the apparatus of claim 9 examined above, Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) further teaches wherein a first field value of the one or two field values indicates support of one or more continuous dynamic puncture patterns associated with bandwidths greater than 160MHz (Col. 8, lines 24-30 & Col. 25, lines 63-67: EHT support 320Mhz channel groups & puncture indication in the NDPA using dynamic puncturing).
Regarding claim 14, Verma in view of Reddy teaches the apparatus of claim 9 examined above, Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) further teaches wherein a second field value of the one or two field values indicates support of all optional preamble puncture patterns (Fig. 11; Col. 30, lines 1 to Col. 31, line 33).
Regarding claim 15, Verma in view of Reddy teaches the apparatus of claim 9 examined above, Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) further teaches wherein ISTA to perform, based on a supported static puncture pattern being non-continuous, a fallback procedure to a legacy mode associated with using a maximum available bandwidth for ranging (Fig. 7A; Col. 18, lines 4-19: the HE NDPA 705 may instruct the wireless communication device 120 to use legacy; for example, 802.11ac, in their transmission).
Regarding claim 16, Verma in view of Reddy teaches the apparatus of claim 9 examined above, Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) further teaches wherein the ISTA and RSTA support a static puncture pattern in addition to supporting one or more sets of preamble puncture patterns, and wherein the static puncture pattern has a continuous spectrum (Fig. 2; Col. 11, lines 11-15: Nup and Ndn may be static values or may change for each scheduling interval).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-8, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 9-10, 12-16 examined above. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-8 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 9-10, 12-16 above.
10. Claims 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) in view of Reddy et al. (US#2026/0095882).
Regarding claim 17, the references disclose an apparatus and techniques for enhanced NDPA frame in ranging of WIFI, according to the essential features of the claim. Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) discloses an initiating station (ISTA), comprising: a radio; and a processor operably coupled to the radio (see Fig. 3 for the structure of a wireless device includes processor 304) and configured to cause the ISTA to: transmit, to a responding station (RSTA), a first indicator indicating that the ISTA supports one or more preamble puncture patterns (Fig. 12; Col. 2, lines 29-46 & Col. 31, lines 35-40: transmitting from a transmitting device to a receiving device, a first message that indicates a puncturing pattern that will be used to puncture a punctured sounding message via a wireless channel. For example, the first message may be an NDPA); receive, from the RSTA, a second indicator indicating that the RSTA supports at least one of the one or more preamble puncture patterns (Fig. 13; Col. 3, lines 1-8: determining that the receiving device supports puncturing sounding may include receiving a punctured sounding capability indicator from the receiving device), wherein at least one of the first indicator or the second indicator comprise a first bit indicating support of dynamic puncture patterns associated with a maximum bandwidth and a second bit indicating support of non-continuous puncture patterns (Col. 8, lines 24-30; Col. 25, lines 63-67 && Col. 29, lines 22-56: EHT support 320Mhz channel groups & puncture indication in the NDPA using dynamic puncturing).
However, Verma reference does not disclose expressly wherein responsive to determining that the ISTA and RSTA support a first optional preamble puncture pattern of the one or more optional preamble puncture patterns, start according to the first preamble pattern, a ranging session with the RSTA. In the same field of endeavor, Reddy et al. (US#2026/0095882) discloses in Fig. 5 a timing diagram of an example measurement sounding phase of a non-trigger-based (non-TB) ranging procedure as defined in the IIEEE 802.11az standard, in which an ISTA initiates the ranging session by transmitting an NDP announcement to notify the RSTA that it will be transmitting an I2R NDP for which the RSTA should monitor (para [0106]: ranging session between STAs in wireless communications).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to apply Reddy’s scheduling for WIFI based positioning and hybridization with cellular based positioning into Verma’s punctured sounding and partial bandwidth feedback with the motivation being to provide a method and system for enhanced ranging techniques in IEEE 802.11 communications.
Regarding claim 18, Verma in view of Reddy teaches the apparatus of claim 9 examined above, Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) further teaches wherein the first bit and the second bit are associated with a puncturing pattern support field of a ranging sub-element (Figs. 8, 11; Col. 20, line 54 to Col. 22, line 48 & Col. 30, lines 1 to Col. 31, line 33: puncturing schemes that are able to identify one or more ranges of subcarriers).
Regarding claim 20, Verma in view of Reddy teaches the apparatus of claim 9 examined above, Verma et al. (US#10,772,099) further teaches wherein the first bit and second bit are comprised in an optional preamble puncture pattern support subfield (Fig. 11; Col. 30, lines 58 to Col. 31, line 25: subfield values and NDPA frame bandwidth).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 3, 11, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein at least one of the first field value or the second field value indicates: at least one of the ISTA or the RSTA supporting all optional preamble puncture patterns; or at least one of the ISTA or the RSTA supporting a subset of all optional preamble puncture patterns; wherein the ISTA is further configured to: combine the first bit and the second bit of the first indicator to determine a first capability of the ISTA; and combine the first bit and the second bit of the second indicator to determine a second capability of the RSTA, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
15. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) 07find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced"
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
16. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION 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 extension fee 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
18. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
July 27, 2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights