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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 20170134540).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/8, Yang teaches A method comprising: ‘
receiving, by a station (STA) ([Fig.2], “wireless communication devices”), a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) ([0085], the wireless communication devices may receive a “physical layer data unit (PPDU) packet encoded according to the 802.11ac wireless communication protocol.”); and
decoding ([0085], “Each of the fields 302, 304 and 306 are termed “legacy” because these fields are backwards compatible with earlier legacy 802.11 communication protocols (e.g., 802.11a/b/g) such that wireless communication devices operating according to these legacy protocols can also decode these legacy preamble fields.”), by the STA, a signaling field in the received PPDU ([0085], “legacy preamble fields.”), the signaling field including at least a first group of fields ([Fig.3], “a legacy short training field (e.g., L-STF field 302), a legacy long training field (e.g., L-LTF field 304), and a legacy signal field (e.g., L-SIG field 306).”) which are version independent ([0085], since “all devices (or a first set) can decode legacy fields,” and the legacy fields “are backwards compatible with earlier legacy 802.11 communication protocols (e.g., 802.11a/b/g),” so regardless versions of wireless communication devices, the wireless communication devices can still decode the legacy preamble.).
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2/9, Yang teaches wherein the decoded signaling field further includes a second group of fields ([Fig.4], HT SIG1 and HT SIG2) which are dependent ([0086], “The 802.11n PPDU preamble 400 can also include a HT short training field (HT-STF) 412. The symbols 408 and 410 and the field 412 can be decodable by wireless communication devices operating according to the 802.11n protocol, but not by wireless communication devices operating according to, for example, 802.11a/b/g protocols.” ).
Regarding claim(s) 6/13, Yang teaches wherein the version independent fields are legacy-friendly signaling ([0085], “Each of the fields 302, 304 and 306 are termed “legacy” because these fields are backwards compatible with earlier legacy 802.11 communication protocols (e.g., 802.11a/b/g) such that wireless communication devices operating according to these legacy protocols can also decode these legacy preamble fields.”).
Regarding claim(s) 7/14, Yang teaches a legacy friendly preamble design ([Fig.4 and 0086], “The 802.11n preamble 400 can include an L-STF field 402, a L-LTF field 404 and a L-SIG field 406, which can each correspond to and be substantially identical to the L-STF field 302, the L-LTF field 304 and the L-SIG field 306 of FIG. 3.”).
Regarding claim(s) 15/17, Yang teaches wherein the first group of fields comprises fields that are understood by high efficiency (HE) stations (STAs) ([0085], “in certain mixed-standard environments, all devices (or a first set) can decode legacy fields.” Since all devices will include HE STAs, so HE STA can decode legacy fields.).
Regarding claim(s) 16/18, Yang teaches wherein the first group of fields ([Fig.6 and 0089], a combination of legacy fields 602 ,604 and 606 and “high efficiency” fields HE-SIG0 and HE-SIG1.) comprises fields that are understood by HE STAs as fields in a high efficiency signal A (HE-SIG- A) ([Fig.6 and 0085], “high efficiency” fields HE-SIG0 and HE-SIG1 are decodable by HE STAs.).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Su (US 20170111196).
Regarding claim(s) 3/10, Su teaches wherein the decoded signaling field further includes one or more reserved fields ([0024 and Fig.1], “The L-SIG field in a PLCP protocol data unit (PPDU) frame ... In the L-SIG field, there are ... a reserved field (bit 4).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Yang to specify reserved field as taught by Su. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for spoofing indication.
Regarding claim(s) 4/11, Su teaches wherein at least one of the one or more reserved fields is configured to validate whether the STA continues receiving the PPDU ([0038], “the processing circuit 410 could determine to control the receiving circuit 420 not to receive ... the remaining portion of the transmitted frame when detecting a spoofing indicator is contained in a reserved field of legacy physical layer preamble.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Yang to specify reserved field as taught by Su. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for spoofing indication.
Regarding claim(s) 5/12, Su teaches wherein the one or more reserved fields are configured to validate at least by being set to predefined values ([0038], “wherein the one or more reserved fields are configured to validate at least by being set to predefined values.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Yang to specify reserved field as taught by Su. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for spoofing indication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Previous USC 112(a) rejections are withdrawn in view of submitted arguments.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (Remark page 15, last paragraph)
“the claims recite "a signaling field" that includes "at least a first group of fields which are version independent." This language requires that the version-independent fields constitute an identified, structured group within a defined signaling field. That is, a particular architectural organization of the PPDU's signaling structure. Yang does not disclose this organizational concept. Yang's focus is on the use of edge tones to carry data and early detection of HE packets, not on defining and structuring a signaling field into version-independent and version- dependent groups as a design principle”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cited teaching [Fig.3 and 0085, Yang], which discloses a preamble includes “legacy” type fields, which include L-STF field 302, L-LTF field 304 and L-SIG field 306. Based on disclosure from Yang, an ordinary skilled in the art would be enlightened to consider all legacy type fields in the preamble as an aggregated signaling field. In other words, the preamble disclosed by Yang is mapped to the claimed signaling field. An ordinary skilled in the art would understand the legacy type fields can be recognized as a combined or aggregated signaling field. Yang discloses the legacy type fields, is mapped to the claimed version independent fields because the legacy type fields are backward compatible and decodable by all STAs.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, the rejections are sustained.
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 ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights