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
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 08/19/2026.
Claims 1-12, 15, 17 are currently pending.
Claims 13-14, 16, 18-19 are canceled.
Claims 1, 15, 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, 15, 17 are rejected.
Claims 6, 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 12, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin Yang et al (US 20250219781 A1) in view of Zhouyue Pi et al (US 20100124197 A1).
For Claim 1, Yang discloses a method performed by a station (STA) in a wireless local area
network (WLAN) system (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0054, lines 1-3, that an AP 102 may distribute the RUs across the channel bandwidth to improve frequency diversity and available power for communications), the method comprising:
receiving, from an access point (AP), distributed resource allocation information
related to a plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated to the STA (Yang shows, in FIG. 7, step 610, At 610, the AP 102-b may transmit an indication of the distributed RU to the STA 104-b. For example, the AP 102-b may allocate the distributed RU to the STA 104-b such that the STA 104-b may receive information on the downlink, or may allocate the distributed RU to the STA 104-b such that the STA 104-b may transmit information on the uplink); and
performing an uplink transmission or a downlink reception with the AP based on the
distributed resource allocation information (Yang shows, in FIG. 7, At 620, the AP 102-b and the STA 104-b may communicate using the set of tones of the distributed RU. In a first example, the AP 102-b may transmit data over the subset of data tones to the STA 104-b on the downlink),
wherein the distributed resource allocation information is based on a number of the
plurality of RUs (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0054 that the RU allocation may indicate which RU each of the STAs is to use to transmit an uplink (UL) OFDMA communication to the AP. Each of the RUs includes a fixed number of tones or subcarriers).
Yang fails to expressly disclose that the distributed resource allocation information is based on a resource allocation information for each of the plurality of RUs, wherein each of the plurality of RUs includes contiguous subcarriers, and wherein the plurality of RUs are allocated to the STA are non-contiguous within at least one available frequency unit excluding at least one punctured or inactive frequency unit.
However, Pi, in analogous art, discloses that the distributed resource allocation information is based on a resource allocation information for each of the plurality of RUs (Pi teaches, in ¶ 0089, that One node is assigned row-wise--node C 1025 in the second tree 1030-representing row_1 1050 and row_2 1055. As such, the resource units that are located at the intersection of columns {2, 3, 6}, and rows {0, 1} are assigned, which are shown as a shaded grid), wherein each of the plurality of RUs includes contiguous subcarriers, and wherein the plurality of RUs are allocated to the STA are non-contiguous within at least one available frequency unit excluding at least one punctured or inactive frequency unit (Pi teaches, in ¶ 0074, that the resource allocation includes multiple distributed blocks 605, 610 with each block comprising of multiple contiguous RUs 301. As shown in FIG. 6, RU_13, RU_14, and RU_15 form the first contiguous block 605. RU_25, RU_26, and RU_27 form the second contiguous block 610. However, the first contiguous block 605 and the second contiguous block 610 are distributed in frequency).
Pi emphasizes in ¶ 0059 that Each RU 301 can be configured in two dimensions such that each RU 301 includes eighteen sub-carriers along a frequency axis and six OFDM symbols along a time axis. For illustration purposes, in this example, the subcarriers and OFDM symbols within each RU are contiguous.
Pi’s recitation that the resource units that are located at the intersection of columns {2, 3, 6}, and rows {0, 1} are assigned is consistent with Applicant’s specification, which states in para “[0168] As in the example of FIG. 11, the common field of the EHT-SIG may include RU allocation information. RU allocation information may mean information on the location of an RU to which a plurality of users (i.e., a plurality of receiving STAs) are allocated”.
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 communication system taught in Yang with the resource matrix construction taught in Pi. The motivation is for reducing the other-cell interference variation perceived by a resource allocation [Pi: ¶ 0065].
For Claim 2, Yang discloses a method, wherein: the each of the plurality of RUs is allocated to one of a plurality of frequency units (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0054 that the RU allocation may indicate which RU each of the STAs is to use to transmit an uplink (UL) OFDMA communication to the AP. Each of the RUs includes a fixed number of tones or subcarriers).
For Claim 12, Yang discloses a method, wherein: the plurality of RUs have a same or different size of 242-tones or less (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0037, lines 1-4, that In some examples, a distributed RU including 26 tones (for example, 24 data tones and 2 pilot tones) may be distributed across a channel bandwidth spanning 242 tones (such as by spreading data tones across 216 useful tones of the total 242 tones)).
For Claim 15, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, above.
For Claim 17, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, above.
Claims 3, 5 ,7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin Yang et al (US 20250219781 A1) in view of Zhouyue Pi et al (US 20100124197 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bo Gong et al (US 20230403126 A1).
For Claim 3, Yang & Pi disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the distributed resource allocation information is indicated based on user information (user info) fields a number of which corresponds to the number of the plurality of RUs within a trigger frame.
However, Gong, in analogous art, discloses that the distributed resource allocation information is indicated based on user information (user info) fields a number of which corresponds to the number of the plurality of RUs within a trigger frame (Gong teaches, in ¶ 0018, that any STA in the at least one STA may determine, from the matrix P based on an indication of an SS Allocation field in a User Info Field in a trigger frame received by the STA, a row corresponding to the STA).
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 communication system taught in Yang with the trigger frame taught in Gong. The motivation is to trigger at least one STA including the STA to transmit an uplink physical layer protocol data unit PPDU based on the allocated RU.
For Claim 5, Yang & Pi disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the distributed resource allocation information is indicated based on one trigger dependent user information field.
However, Gong, in analogous art, discloses that the distributed resource allocation information is indicated based on one trigger dependent user information field (Gong teaches, in ¶ 0172, that the After receiving the trigger frame, the STA parses the trigger frame to obtain the user information field that matches the AID12 of the STA, so that the allocated distributed RU can be determined based on the resource unit allocation subfield in the user information field).
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 communication system taught in Yang with the trigger frame taught in Gong. The motivation is to trigger at least one STA including the STA to transmit an uplink physical layer protocol data unit PPDU based on the allocated RU.
For Claim 7, Yang & Pi disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the distributed resource allocation information is indicated based on at least one of RU allocation information included in common information of a signal (SIG) field, or user fields a number of which corresponds to the number of the plurality of RUs.
However, Gong, in analogous art, discloses that the distributed resource allocation information is indicated based on at least one of RU allocation information included in common information of a signal (SIG) field, or user fields a number of which corresponds to the number of the plurality of RUs (Gong teaches, in ¶ 0173 that FIG. 11(b) shows a composition of the Common Field in the trigger frame shown in FIG. 11a. Gong teaches, in ¶ 0175 that The uplink bandwidth field indicates a bandwidth in an HE-SIG-A of an HE TB PPDU).
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 communication system taught in Yang with the trigger frame taught in Gong. The motivation is to trigger at least one STA including the STA to transmit an uplink physical layer protocol data unit PPDU based on the allocated RU.
For Claim 9, Yang & Pi disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that for the uplink transmission, whether a distributed resource allocation is supported is included in a common information field of a trigger frame.
However, Gong, in analogous art, discloses that for the uplink transmission, whether a distributed resource allocation is supported is included in a common information field of a trigger frame (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0179 that The resource unit allocation field may join with the uplink bandwidth field in the common information field to indicate a size and a location of an allocated RU).
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 communication system taught in Yang with the trigger frame taught in Gong. The motivation is to trigger at least one STA including the STA to transmit an uplink physical layer protocol data unit PPDU based on the allocated RU.
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin Yang et al (US 20250219781 A1) in view of Zhouyue Pi et al (US 20100124197 A1) & Bo Gong et al (US 20230403126 A1) as applied to claim 3, or 7 above, and further in view of Jeongki Kim et al (US 20190052353 A1).
For Claim 4, Yang, Pi and Gong disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the user information fields include same STA identification information,
any one of the user information fields includes information on the number of the
plurality of RUs, or includes indication information on whether a remaining user information
field presents or indication information on whether the user information field is a last user
information field.
However, Kim, in analogous art, discloses that the user information fields include same STA identification information (Kim teaches, in ¶ 0159, that a GID (group ID) instead of per STA ID (e.g., AID or PAID) may be used in HE-SIG (e.g., HE-SIG B)), any one of the user information fields includes information on the number of the plurality of RUs, or includes indication information on whether a remaining user information field presents or indication information on whether the user information field is a last user information field (Kim teaches, in ¶ 0175, that only one GID (e.g., GID=a) among available GIDs may be explicitly indicated through a trigger frame and the remaining GIDs may be implicitly signaled to STAs).
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 communication system taught in Yang and Gong with the a GID (group ID) taught in Kim. The motivation is to in order to reduce the processing load of STAs.
For Claim 8, Yang, Pi and Gong disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the user fields include same STA identification information, any one of the user fields includes indication information on whether a remaining user field presents or indication information on whether the user field is a last user field.
However, Kim, in analogous art, discloses that the user fields include same STA identification information (Kim teaches, in ¶ 0159, that a GID (group ID) instead of per STA ID (e.g., AID or PAID) may be used in HE-SIG (e.g., HE-SIG B)), any one of the user fields includes indication information on whether a remaining user field presents or indication information on whether the user field is a last user field (Kim teaches, in ¶ 0175, that only one GID (e.g., GID=a) among available GIDs may be explicitly indicated through a trigger frame and the remaining GIDs may be implicitly signaled to STAs).
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 communication system taught in Yang and Gong with the a GID (group ID) taught in Kim. The motivation is to in order to reduce the processing load of STAs.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin Yang et al (US 20250219781 A1) in view of Zhouyue Pi et al (US 20100124197 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeongki Kim et al (US 20190052353 A1).
For Claim 11, Yang and Pi disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that for the downlink reception, whether a distributed resource allocation is supported is
indicated based on a part of bits of a common field for an orthogonal frequency domain
multiple access (OFDMA) transmission of a second SIG field.
However, Kim, in analogous art, discloses that for the downlink reception, whether a distributed resource allocation is supported is indicated based on a part of bits of a common field for an orthogonal frequency domain multiple access (OFDMA) transmission of a second SIG field (Kim teaches, in ¶ 0242, that the trigger frame may be used for M-BA ID allocation. The M-BA frame may be transmitted in the OFDMA PPDU format, and the STA ID subfield of the HE-SIG B field of the M-BA frame may be set to an allocated M-BA ID. According to option 1, an M-BA ID is included in a Per User Info field. According to option 2, a reference M-BA ID may be included in a common user information field and an M-BA ID index which indicates an M-BA ID to be actually allocated may be included in the Per User Info field).
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 communication system taught in Yang and Gong with the a GID (group ID) taught in Kim. The motivation is to in order to reduce the processing load of STAs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 6, 10 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations:
“the one trigger dependent user information field includes information on a value
obtained by subtracting 1 from the number of the plurality of RUs, and RU allocation
information for each of at least one remaining RU excluding the first RU among the plurality
of RUs” as recited in dependent claim 6.
“for the downlink reception, whether a distributed resource allocation is supported is
indicated based on a combination of a value of a downlink/uplink flag field of a first SIG
field, and a value of a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) type and compression mode
field” as recited in dependent claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Claim Rejection under 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that "According to Applicant's claimed invention, the plurality of RUs allocated to a single STA are non-contiguous with each other, and the subcarriers within each RU are contiguous. Applicant's FIG. 17 depicts examples that a single STA is allocated with RUs (noted as DRU1, DRU2, DRU3 and DRU4 in FIG. 17) that are non-contiguous within available frequency resources. Such distinct technical features are not disclosed or suggested by Yang," (remarks, page 8).
The reason being Pi teaches, in ¶ 0074, that the resource allocation includes multiple distributed blocks 605, 610 with each block comprising of multiple contiguous RUs 301. As shown in FIG. 6, RU_13, RU_14, and RU_15 form the first contiguous block 605. RU_25, RU_26, and RU_27 form the second contiguous block 610. However, the first contiguous block 605 and the second contiguous block 610 are distributed in frequency).
Pi emphasizes in ¶ 0059 that Each RU 301 can be configured in two dimensions such that each RU 301 includes eighteen sub-carriers along a frequency axis and six OFDM symbols along a time axis. For illustration purposes, in this example, the subcarriers and OFDM symbols within each RU are contiguous.
Clearly, Pi teaches that the plurality of RUs allocated to a single STA are non-contiguous with each other, and the subcarriers within each RU are contiguous.
For at least these reasons, amended claims are not yet allowable.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejections be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Porat (US 20190327746 A1) is pertinent to Systems and methods for providing resource unit allocations for both contiguous and non-contiguous resource units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights