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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17, 25-31 been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 submitted 11/05/2024 and 09/22/2025 is attached to the instant office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11, 12, 17, 25-27, 30, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2009/0122755 A1 to Seok et al. (hereinafter “Seok”)
Regarding Claims 1 and 25, Seok teaches A method for use in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: (Figure 2 and [0032], illustrates WTRU/STA 131)
A WTRU comprising a circuitry including a receiver and a processor, the circuitry being configured to: (Figure 2 and [0032], illustrates WTRU/STA 131. WTRUs are well known to have processor and receiver. [0008] and [0067], discloses processing data through an established mesh peer link between two MPs)
generating a medium access control (MAC) service data unit (MSDU), ([0018], discloses generating an A-MSDU using a plurality of mesh data frames. [0020], discloses the A-MSDU includes a plurality of A_MSDU sub-frames, wherein each of the A-MSDU sub-frames comprises a sub-frame header unit, an MSDU unit (i.e. generating a MSDU) for containing data of each of the plural MSDU)
wherein a frame of the MSDU is extended by inclusion of an enhanced privacy (EP) header indicating a real size of the MSDU; ([0020], discloses each of the A-MSDU sub-frames comprises a sub-frame header unit (i.e. enhanced privacy header), wherein the sub-frame header unit comprises a length field of specifying the length of the MSDU unit (i.e. indicating a real size of the MSDU)) and
transmitting the MSDU. ([0018], discloses transmitting the A_MSDU to the MP through the mesh peer link)
Regarding Claim 2, Seok teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the real size of the MSDU is an original length of the MSDU without length modification. ([0020], discloses the sub-frame header unit comprises a length field of specifying the length of the MSDU unit (i.e. original length of the MSDU without length modification))
Regarding Claim 3, Seok teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the EP header includes a length subfield containing a length of an original MSDU before being extended. ([0020], discloses the sub-frame header unit comprises a length field of specifying the length of the MSDU unit (i.e. original length of the MSDU before being extended))
Regarding Claim 9, Seok further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the MSDU is extended by padding. (Figure 1, illustrates padding added to MSDU)
Regarding Claim 11, Seok further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the WTRU is a station (STA). ([0031], discloses STAs 131, 132, 133, 134)
Regarding Claim 12, Seok further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the WTRU is an access point (AP). ([0031], discloses MPs performing the function of an AP)
Regarding Claim 17, Seok further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the WTRU is a user equipment (UE). ([0032], discloses STAs may be called WTRU, UE)
Claims 26-27, 30 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 2-3, 9, respectively, except the claims are in WTRU apparatus format.
Regarding Claims 31, Seok teaches A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a circuitry including a transceiver, receiver and a processor, the circuitry being configured to: (Figure 2 and [0032], illustrates WTRU/STA 131. WTRUs are well known to have processor and receiver. [0008] and [0067], discloses processing data through an established mesh peer link between two MPs)
Receive a medium access control (MAC) service data unit (MSDU), (( [0018], discloses transmitting the A_MSDU to the MP (i.e. WTRU) through the mesh peer link. [0020], discloses the A-MSDU includes a plurality of A_MSDU sub-frames, wherein each of the A-MSDU sub-frames comprises a sub-frame header unit, an MSDU unit (i.e. MSDU) for containing data of each of the plural MSDU)
wherein a frame of the MSDU is extended by inclusion of an enhanced privacy (EP) header indicating a real size of the MSDU; ([0020], discloses each of the A-MSDU sub-frames comprises a sub-frame header unit (i.e. enhanced privacy header), wherein the sub-frame header unit comprises a length field of specifying the length of the MSDU unit (i.e. indicating a real size of the MSDU))
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of US 2013/0208734 A1 to Wentink et al. (hereinafter “Wentink”)
Regarding Claim 4, Seok teaches The method of claim 3, wherein Seok does not explicitly teach the EP header includes a signature subfield.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wentink discloses in [0097]-[0098], an example MSDU subframe header 1000. In some aspects, the MSDU subframe header 1000 may further include a cyclical redundancy check field or a delimiter signature field (i.e. signature subfield).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok include the above limitations as suggested by Wentink, for improved systems, methods, and devices for communication of aggregated packets as indicated in [0005] of Wentink
Regarding Claim 5, Seok teaches The method of claim 4, wherein Wentink further teaches the signature subfield includes a pattern that is adapted to detect the EP header. ([0097]-[0098], discloses MSDU subframe header including a delimiter (i.e. pattern) signature field) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 6, Seok teaches The method of claim 3, wherein Seok does not explicitly teach the EP header includes an EP payload length field.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wentink illustrates in Figure 8A and [0080]-[0082], As illustrated, the PPDU 800 includes a MPDU 810 and a MSDU. More specifically, the PPDU 800 may include a PHY header (hdr) 802, a MAC header 804, a MSDU subframe with end indication (EI) 806, and a frame check sequence (FCS) field 808. The PHY header 802 may include a PPDU length in symbols (i.e. EP payload length field). Further, the MSDU subframe 806 may include in the MSDU subframe header an indication of the length of the MSDU subframe 806 (i.e. length subfield). Figure 9C and [0093]-[0096], describe a similar embodiment as in Figures 8A and 8B. Examiner notes that the grouping of the PHY header, MAC header and the subframe of the MSDU is analogous to “EP header”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok include the above limitations as suggested by Wentink, for improved systems, methods, and devices for communication of aggregated packets as indicated in [0005] of Wentink.
Claims 28-29 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 4 and 6 respectively, except the claims are in WTRU apparatus format.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok/Wentink in view of US 2020/0145145 A1 to Chu et al. (hereinafter “Chu”)
Regarding Claim 7, Seok/Wentink teaches The method of claim 6, wherein Seok/Wentink does not explicitly teach the MSDU is fragmented into a plurality of MSDU fragments.
However, the concept of fragmented MSDUs is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Chu discloses in [0032], FIG. 2 is a diagram of an example medium access control (MAC) service data unit (MSDU) 200 for fragmentation, according to an embodiment. In general, MSDU or frame fragmentation is a MAC layer function that is designed to increase the reliability of transmitting frames across a wireless medium. In various embodiments and/or scenarios, an MSDU is divided into a plurality of fragments if the MSDU has a length that is longer than a predetermined fragmentation threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok/Wentink include the above limitations as suggested by Chu, to increase the reliability of transmitting frames across a wireless medium as indicated in [0032] of Chu.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of US 10826876 B1 to Sinn et al. (hereinafter “Sinn”)
Regarding Claim 10, Seok teaches The method of claim 9, wherein Seok does not explicitly teach the padding is random.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Sinn discloses in Column 2 lines 58-67 and Column 3 lines 1-2, the characteristics of network traffic can be encrypted or obscured. In particular, network traffic patterns can be obscured during transmission at the link level by adding padding to frames so that the size of the packets is hidden. The padding can be encrypted so that it appears as random bits to an outside observer. Column 14, lines 50-57, At 840, padding can be added to the link layer filler packet. For example, the padding can include one or more chained header subfields of a fixed size (such as four octets). A given chained header subfield can include an identifier that indicates the subfield is a chained header, a status bit indicating whether the chained header subfield is the last chained header or whether a chained header subfield follows the present chained header subfield, and random data (i.e. padding is random)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok include the above limitations as suggested by Sinn, to increase the security of information transiting a network as indicated in Column 1 lines 19-22 of Sinn.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of US 2021/0176646 A1 to Pabla (hereinafter “Pabla”)
Regarding Claim 13, Seok further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein Seok does not explicitly teach the WTRU is a vehicle.
However, the concept of a WTRU being a vehicle is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Pabla discloses in [0031], each WTRU may comprise or be included in any type of apparatus or device configured to transmit and/or receive wireless signals, including, by way of example only, user equipment (UE), a mobile station, a fixed or mobile subscriber unit, a pager, a cellular telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet, a netbook, a notebook computer, a personal computer, a wireless sensor, consumer electronics, a wearable device such as a smart watch or smart clothing, a medical or eHealth device, a robot, industrial equipment, a drone, a vehicle such as a car, bus or truck, a train, or an airplane, and the like.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok include the above limitations as suggested by Pabla, to allow a WTRU with a wide variety of use cases contemplated for wireless communications as indicated in [0031] of Pabla.
Regarding Claim 14, Seok further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein
Seok does not explicitly teach the WTRU is a drone.
However, the concept of a WTRU being a drone is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Pabla discloses in [0031], each WTRU may comprise or be included in any type of apparatus or device configured to transmit and/or receive wireless signals, including, by way of example only, user equipment (UE), a mobile station, a fixed or mobile subscriber unit, a pager, a cellular telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet, a netbook, a notebook computer, a personal computer, a wireless sensor, consumer electronics, a wearable device such as a smart watch or smart clothing, a medical or eHealth device, a robot, industrial equipment, a drone, a vehicle such as a car, bus or truck, a train, or an airplane, and the like.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok include the above limitations as suggested by Pabla, to allow a WTRU with a wide variety of use cases contemplated for wireless communications as indicated in [0031] of Pabla.
Regarding Claim 15, Seok further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein
Seok does not explicitly teach the WTRU is a fixed wireless access (FWA) device
However, the concept of a WTRU being a fixed wireless access device is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Pabla discloses in [0031], each WTRU may comprise or be included in any type of apparatus or device configured to transmit and/or receive wireless signals, including, by way of example only, user equipment (UE), a mobile station, a fixed or mobile subscriber unit, a pager, a cellular telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet, a netbook, a notebook computer, a personal computer, a wireless sensor, consumer electronics, a wearable device such as a smart watch or smart clothing, a medical or eHealth device, a robot, industrial equipment, a drone, a vehicle such as a car, bus or truck, a train, or an airplane, and the like.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok include the above limitations as suggested by Pabla, to allow a WTRU with a wide variety of use cases contemplated for wireless communications as indicated in [0031] of Pabla.
Regarding Claim 16, Seok further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein
Seok does not explicitly teach the WTRU is an industrial device.
However, the concept of a WTRU being an industrial device is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Pabla discloses in [0031], each WTRU may comprise or be included in any type of apparatus or device configured to transmit and/or receive wireless signals, including, by way of example only, user equipment (UE), a mobile station, a fixed or mobile subscriber unit, a pager, a cellular telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet, a netbook, a notebook computer, a personal computer, a wireless sensor, consumer electronics, a wearable device such as a smart watch or smart clothing, a medical or eHealth device, a robot, industrial equipment, a drone, a vehicle such as a car, bus or truck, a train, or an airplane, and the like.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok include the above limitations as suggested by Pabla, to allow a WTRU with a wide variety of use cases contemplated for wireless communications as indicated in [0031] of Pabla.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights