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 .
Priorities
This application is a Continuation of 17227281 (filed 04/10/2021, now U.S. Patent #11996963), which is a Continuation of 16347578 (filed 05/28/2019, now U.S. Patent #10979266), which filed as a National Stage entry of PCT/KR2017/012552
(International Filing Date: 11/07/2017) that claims priority from Provisional Application 62418295 (filed 11/07/2016) and foreign priority to application of REPUBLIC OF KOREA: 10-2016-0158297 (filed 11/25/2016).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 19-30 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19, after another careful review of applicant’s specification, the examiner still cannot find supports for subject matters “…wherein the first format PPDU and the second format PPDU commonly include a predetermined non-legacy signaling field,…” as newly recited in claim 19 (previously recited as “a common signaling field”).
To be more specific, the cited portions of the specification and the figures do not appear to discloses anything related to the first format PPDU (which is non-legacy) and the second format PPDU (which is legacy) commonly include a predetermined non-legacy signaling field (e.g. for the record, declared as “HE-SIG-A”), let alone such non-legacy signaling field is predetermined.
Examiner respectfully requests for indication/explanation for the supports of: (a) the subject matter “commonly include a predetermined non-legacy signaling field”, and (b) the claimed features of “…wherein the first format PPDU and the second format PPDU commonly include a predetermined non-legacy signaling field,…”, as newly cited. Same or similar problem appears in claim 25 would also need clarification.
Accordingly, since independent claim 19 being rejected, all its dependent claims, i.e. claims 20-24, are also rejected. Similarly, independent claim 25 is rejected, all its dependent claims, i.e. claims 26-30, are also rejected.
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 19-30 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 19 line 16-17, the newly added features “…wherein the first format PPDU and the second format PPDU commonly include a predetermined non-legacy signaling field,…” are unclear and ambiguous as follow:
(a) While line 12-13 recite “the second format PPDU is for legacy wireless communication terminal”, then how is this non-legacy signaling field being in a legacy PPDU?
(b) In page 7 of the Remarks filed on 03/04/2026, the applicant appears to explain: (i) the predetermined non-legacy signaling field is of the “HE-SIG-A” (see page 7 line 4-5), and (ii) the second format PPDU (which in claim 19 recited as for legacy) being the “HE” format (see altered/modified fig. 11(b)). Base on applicant’s explanations, how does a legacy “HE” format being a non-legacy signaling field?
Clarifications are respectfully requested for both points.
Accordingly, since independent claim 19 being rejected, all its dependent claims, i.e. claims 20-24, are also rejected. Similarly, independent claim 25 is rejected, all its dependent claims, i.e. claims 26-30, are also rejected.
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 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 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 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 20170048862 A1, hereinafter CHOI), in view of Vermani et al. (US 20180123737 A1, hereinafter Vermani).
Regarding claim 19,
CHOI teaches a base wireless communication terminal wirelessly communicating, the base wireless communication terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a processor (CHOI, see at least fig. 22, e.g. apparatus components),
wherein the processor is configured to (CHOI, in general, see fig. 19 and many of its corresponding paragraphs, in view of fig. 7 and corresponding paragraph 72-95):
perform a downlink transmission (CHOI, see at least para. 90, e.g. the PPDU can be a downlink PPDU),
wherein the downlink transmission is performed through a mixed physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) which is for a mixed downlink transmission (CHOI, see at least para. 90 of fig. 7 along with para. 172-173, e.g. the PPDU can be a mixed downlink PPDU),
wherein the mixed PPDU is for simultaneous transmission of first format PPDU to a first wireless communication terminal and second format PPDU to a second wireless communication terminal using orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) (CHOI, see at least para. 74-78 and 95, e.g. fields 700-720 for legacy nodes, and at least fields 730-760 for non-legacy nodes in an OFDMA system),
wherein the first format PPDU is for non-legacy wireless communication terminal and the second format PPDU is for legacy wireless communication terminal (CHOI, see at least para. 74-78, e.g. fields 700-720 for legacy nodes, and at least fields 730-760 for non-legacy nodes),
wherein a format of a preamble of the first format PPDU is different from a format of a preamble of the second format PPDU (CHOI, see at least para. 74-78 and fig. 7, e.g. fields 700-720 for legacy nodes are different from fields 730-760 for non-legacy nodes),
wherein the first format PPDU and the second format PPDU commonly include a predetermined non-legacy signaling field (CHOI, see at least 172-173 in view of para. 74-78, “...A PPDU 1901 of FIG. 19 may include all or some parts of the field shown in FIG. 7. More specifically, as illustrated, it may include a first control field 1910,
second control fields 1920 and 1930, and a data field 1940. The first control field
1910 may correspond to the aforementioned SIG-A or HE-SIG-A, and the second control field 1920 may correspond to the aforementioned SIG-B or HE-SIG B...”, note that para. 74-78 disclose contents of the first control field 1910 which being, in part, legacy preamble and HE-SIG-A),
wherein the first format PPDU includes a signaling field which is not included in the second format PPDU and is located after the predetermined non-legacy signaling field (CHOI, see at least 172-173 in view of para. 74-78, for one example, but not limited to, any of the one or more fields after HE-SIG-A),
and
wherein the predetermined non-legacy signaling field indicates a basic service set (BSS) color (CHOI, see at least para. 78, e.g. HE-SIG-A has BSS color).
CHOI does not specifically teach the base wireless communication terminal comprising a transceiver.
Vermani teaches the base wireless communication terminal comprising a transceiver (Vermani, see at least para. 67, e.g. Base Transceiver Station (“BTS”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Vermani into CHOI to allow efficient access of the wireless medium based on unpredictable data transmissions while avoiding collisions (Vermani, see para. 112).
Regarding claim 20, CHOI in view of Vermani teaches the second format PPDU of the downlink transmission is legacy PPDU of the downlink transmission and is for a legacy wireless communication terminal. (CHOI, see at least para. 86 and fig. 7, e.g. “…The first field may include a field associated with a legacy system and the second field may include a field associated with an HE system…”)
Regarding claim 21, CHOI in view of Vermani teaches the processor is configured to transmit a frame indicates the first format PPDU of the downlink transmission by including a specific value of an association identifier (AID) before the downlink transmission. (CHOI, see at least para. 147 and fig. 13, e.g. AID field and its value)
Regarding claim 22, CHOI in view of Vermani teaches the first format PPDU and the second format PPDU is simultaneously transmitted after a specific time interval of Short Inter-Frame Spacing (SIFS) after transmitting the frame. (Vermani, see at least para. 112-113, e.g. usage of Short Interframe Spacing (SIFS))
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Vermani into the apparatus of CHOI for allowing efficient access of the wireless medium based on unpredictable data transmissions while avoiding collisions.
Regarding claim 23, CHOI in view of Vermani teaches the first format PPDU and the second format PPDU is transmitted by using an independent Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) indicated by the frame. (CHOI, see at least para. 204, e.g. per user MCS information)
Regarding claim 24, CHOI in view of Vermani teaches the first format PPDU and the second format PPDU is transmitted by using a same PPDU length indicated by the frame. (Vermani, see at least para. 31, e.g. the data unit includes an indication that all of the segments have the same length)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Vermani into the apparatus of CHOI for allowing efficient access of the wireless medium based on unpredictable data transmissions while avoiding collisions.
Regarding claim 25, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as in claim 19. To be more specific, one skilled in the art would have known claim 25 performs reverse procedures of those of claim 19. More specifically, it would the wireless communication terminal of claim 25 that performs the reverse receiving from and transmitting to the base wireless communication terminal of claim 19. Therefore, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 19.
Regarding claims 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30, in view of claim 25 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, respectively, except each of these claims is in wireless communication terminal claim format.
In addition, CHOI in view of Vermani also teaches a same or similar wireless communication terminal comprising processor and memory (CHOI, see at least fig. 22), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 19 and 25, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights