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 .
This Office Action is in response to communication received on 07/01/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 17 are pending and rejected. Claims 3-6 and 8-16 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20180006789 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view IEEE (NPL IEEE P802.11-REVmd/D2.4, August 2019) (IDS) and further in view of Vermani et al (US 20250150237 A1) (hereinafter “Vermani”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the method (see Fig. 1, para. [0009] discloses method in WLAN) comprising:
generating, by a station (STA), a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame (see Fig. 3 (S310) discloses NDPA); and
transmitting (see Fig. 3 S310, para. [0038];[0060] discloses the STAs can perform direct communication when a direct link is set up; AP(310) transmits NDPA to STA), by the STA, the NDPA frame to a receiving STA (see Fig. 3, para. [0060] A310 transmits NDPA to STA),
wherein the NDPA frame includes a medium access control (MAC) header (Fig. 10 (1010-1040), para. [0107] discloses TA field 1040 can be set to a MAC address of AP),
wherein the MAC header includes a Frame Control field (see Fig. 10 (1010), para. [0107] discloses Frame Control Field 1010),
Lee fails to disclose but IEEE teaches wherein the Frame Control field includes a Protocol version subfield, a Type subfield and a Subtype subfield (see page 5 Fig. 9-3-Frame control field format, Protocol version subfield, Type subfield, and Subtype subfield),
wherein the Protocol version subfield includes two bits denoted by BO bit and B1 bit (see page 5, Fig. 9-3 (Protocol version subfield with bits, B0 and B1)),
wherein the Type subfield includes two bits denoted by B2 bit and B3 bit (see page 5, Fig. 9-3 (Type subfield with bits, B2 and B3)),
wherein the Subtype subfield includes four bits denoted by B4 bit to B7 bit (see page 5, Fig. 9-3 (Subtype subfield with bits, B4 to B7)),
wherein the Type subfield has a value of one, and wherein the Subtype subfield has a value of six (see page 5, Fig. 9-4, Type subfield value of 1 and Subtype subfield value of six),
wherein, based on the Subtype subfield having a value of six, the B8 bit to B11 bit of the Frame Control field are set as a Control Frame Extension subfield (see page 5, Fig. 9-4, Type subfield value of 1 and Subtype subfield value of six, Control Frame Extension. Page 5, lines 5-7 discloses Tye subfield is 1 and Subtype subfield is 6 the following subfield is Control Frame Extension B8 to B11),
wherein the B8 bit to B 11 bit are set as one of '1100' to '1111' to indicate that the NDPA frame is an enhanced NDPA frame (B8 to B11 may have any value between 0000 to 1111. Page 9 table 9-2 -Control Frame Extension shows 1011-1111 as reserved).
Lee and IEEE are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and WLAN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the Frame Control Field as described by IEEE.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving signaling on the new 802.11 standards.
IEEE does not disclose but Vermani teaches wherein the NDPA frame includes an
enhanced NDPA Type subfield having a length of one octet (see Fig. 10 (1020, B0-B7), para. [0088] discloses sounding dialog token 1020 may be 1 octet in length),
wherein the enhanced NDPA Type subfield is located following the MAC header (see Fig. 10 (1020 after MAC header 1010), see para. [0088] discloses MAC header 1010 and dialog token field), and
wherein the enhanced NDPA Type subfield includes 3-bit information having a value of zero to indicate that the enhanced NDPA frame supports 802.11bf specification (see para. [0084];[0089] discloses the term “non-legacy” may refer to PPDU formats and communication protocols conforming to the IEEE 802.11be amendment, and future generations, of the IEEE 802.11 standard.; example, each of the EHT and HE subfields may be set to a value of 1 to indicate that the NDPA frame 1000 is configured in accordance with the non-legacy NDPA frame format. On the other hand, the EHT subfield may be set to a value of 0 to indicate that the NDPA frame 1000 is configured in accordance with the legacy NDPA frame format. More specifically, when the value of the EHT subfield is equal to 0, the value of the HE subfield may indicate whether the NDPA frame 1000 conforms to the IEEE 802.11ax amendment (HE=1) or the IEEE 802.11ac amendment (HE=0) of the IEEE 802.11 standard).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
IEEE and Vermani are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and WLAN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE to include the NDPA Field as described by Vermani.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving signaling on the new 802.11 standards.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses a method (see Fig. 1, para. [0009] discloses method in WLAN).
Lee fails to disclose but Vermani teaches wherein the 3-bit information has a value of one to seven to indicate that the enhanced NDPA frame supports a later specification of 802.11bf specification (see Fig. 10 (B0-B7), para. [0084];[0089] discloses the term “non-legacy” may refer to PPDU formats and communication protocols conforming to the IEEE 802.11be amendment, and future generations, of the IEEE 802.11 standard.; example, each of the EHT and HE subfields may be set to a value of 1 to indicate that the NDPA frame 1000 is configured in accordance with the non-legacy NDPA frame format. On the other hand, the EHT subfield may be set to a value of 0 to indicate that the NDPA frame 1000 is configured in accordance with the legacy NDPA frame format. More specifically, when the value of the EHT subfield is equal to 0, the value of the HE subfield may indicate whether the NDPA frame 1000 conforms to the IEEE 802.11ax amendment (HE=1) or the IEEE 802.11ac amendment (HE=0) of the IEEE 802.11 standard).
Lee and Vermani are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and WLAN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the NDPA frame as described by Vermani.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving signaling on the new 802.11 standards.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a station (STA) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system (see Fig. 11 (1100), para. [0111]-[0112] discloses a wireless apparatus AP or STA),
a transceiver transmitting and/or receiving a wireless signal (see Fig. 11 (1130), transceiver, para. [0112] discloses transceiver 1130);
a processor controlling the transceiver (see Fig. 11 (1110), para. [0112] discloses processor 1110 couple to the transceiver and implements IEE802.11 standard),
wherein the processor is configured for:
generating a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame (see Fig. 3 (S310) discloses NDPA); and
transmitting the NDPA frame (see Fig. 3, para. [0060] A310 transmits NDPA to STA),
wherein the NDPA frame includes a medium access control (MAC) header (Fig. 10 (1010-1040), para. [0107] discloses TA field 1040 can be set to a MAC address of AP),
wherein the MAC header includes a Frame Control field (see Fig. 10 (1010), para. [0107] discloses Frame Control Field 1010),
Lee fails to disclose but IEEE teaches wherein the Frame Control field includes a Protocol version subfield, a Type subfield and a Subtype subfield (see page 5 Fig. 9-3-Frame control field format, Protocol version subfield, Type subfield, and Subtype subfield),
wherein the Protocol version subfield includes two bits denoted by BO bit and B1 bit (see page 5, Fig. 9-3 (Protocol version subfield with bits, B0 and B1)),
wherein the Type subfield includes two bits denoted by B2 bit and B3 bit (see page 5, Fig. 9-3 (Type subfield with bits, B2 and B3)),
wherein the Subtype subfield includes four bits denoted by B4 bit to B7 bit (see page 5, Fig. 9-3 (Subtype subfield with bits, B4 to B7)),
wherein the Type subfield has a value of one, and wherein the Subtype subfield has a value of six (see page 5, Fig. 9-4, Type subfield value of 1 and Subtype subfield value of six),
wherein, based on the Subtype subfield having a value of six, the B8 bit to B 11 bit of the Frame Control field are set as a Control Frame Extension subfield (see page 5, Fig. 9-4, Type subfield value of 1 and Subtype subfield value of six, Control Frame Extension. Page 5, lines 5-7 discloses Tye subfield is 1 and Subtype subfield is 6 the following subfield is Control Frame Extension B8 to B11),
wherein the B8 bit to B 11 bit are set as one of '1100' to '1111' to indicate that the NDPA frame is an enhanced NDPA frame (B8 to B11 may have any value between 0000 to 1111. Page 9 table 9-2 -Control Frame Extension shows 1011-1111 as reserved).
Lee and IEEE are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and WLAN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the Frame Control Field as described by IEEE.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving signaling and differentiation on the 802.11 standards.
IEEE does not disclose but Vermani teaches wherein the NDPA frame includes an enhanced NDPA Type subfield having a length of one octet (see Fig. 10 (1020, B0-B7), para. [0088] discloses sounding dialog token 1020 may be 1 octet in length),
wherein the enhanced NDPA Type subfield is located following the MAC header (see Fig. 10 (1020 after MAC header 1010), see para. [0088] discloses MAC header 1010 and dialog token field), and
wherein the enhanced NDPA Type subfield includes 3-bit information having a value of zero to indicate that the enhanced NDPA frame supports 802.11bf specification (see para. [0084];[0089] discloses the term “non-legacy” may refer to PPDU formats and communication protocols conforming to the IEEE 802.11be amendment, and future generations, of the IEEE 802.11 standard.; example, each of the EHT and HE subfields may be set to a value of 1 to indicate that the NDPA frame 1000 is configured in accordance with the non-legacy NDPA frame format. On the other hand, the EHT subfield may be set to a value of 0 to indicate that the NDPA frame 1000 is configured in accordance with the legacy NDPA frame format. More specifically, when the value of the EHT subfield is equal to 0, the value of the HE subfield may indicate whether the NDPA frame 1000 conforms to the IEEE 802.11ax amendment (HE=1) or the IEEE 802.11ac amendment (HE=0) of the IEEE 802.11 standard).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
IEEE and Vermani are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and WLAN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE to include the NDPA Field as described by Vermani.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving signaling and differentiation of the 802.11 standards.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses a STA (see Fig. 11 (1100), para. [0111]-[0112] discloses a wireless apparatus AP or STA).
Lee fails to disclose but Vermani teaches wherein the 3-bit information has a value of one to seven to indicate that the enhanced NDPA frame supports a later specification of 802.11bf specification (see para. [0084];[0089] discloses the term “non-legacy” may refer to PPDU formats and communication protocols conforming to the IEEE 802.11be amendment, and future generations, of the IEEE 802.11 standard.; example, each of the EHT and HE subfields may be set to a value of 1 to indicate that the NDPA frame 1000 is configured in accordance with the non-legacy NDPA frame format. On the other hand, the EHT subfield may be set to a value of 0 to indicate that the NDPA frame 1000 is configured in accordance with the legacy NDPA frame format. More specifically, when the value of the EHT subfield is equal to 0, the value of the HE subfield may indicate whether the NDPA frame 1000 conforms to the IEEE 802.11ax amendment (HE=1) or the IEEE 802.11ac amendment (HE=0) of the IEEE 802.11 standard).
Lee and Vermani are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and WLAN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the NDPA Field as described by Vermani.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving signaling and differentiation of the 802.11 standards.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 7 under 35 USC § 103, and the addition of claim 17, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of IEEE (NPL IEEE P802.11-REVmd/D2.4, August 2019) and Vermani et al (US 20250150237 A1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUIS GUILLERMO LEMA LEMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5710. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/LUIS GUILLERMO LEMA LEMOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights