DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending in the instant application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification utilizes the acronym “FES” without providing its full textual expansion or definition anywhere in the written description. Abbreviations and acronyms must be explicitly spelled out upon first appearance or clearly defined in the specification to ensure a clear and complete disclosure. Applicant is required to amend the specification to spell out and define the term “FES” (e.g., Frame Exchange Sequence).
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7 and 14 introduce the technical acronym “FES” (i.e., “1-user sounding FES duration”) without spelling out or expanding the abbreviation upon its first occurrence in the claim sets. As a matter of formal claim drafting practice, claims must be complete and clear on their face without requiring reference to external industry glossaries to decipher unexpanded shorthand. Applicant must amend claims 7 and 14 to spell out the acronym upon its first appearance in the claim sets, (e.g., amending “FES” to “Frame Exchange Sequence (FES)”). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. [Yu1] (US 2024/0195552 A1) in view of in view of Yu et al. [Yu2] (US 2024/0356605 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Yu1 discloses a beamforming device comprising: a processor; and a transceiver coupled to the processor, wherein the processor and the transceiver are configured for (Yu1: ¶ 0070, communication apparatus that is a beamformer, including a processor and a transceiver):
sending a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame to...a target user to indicate the target user to prepare for channel estimation (Yu1: ¶ 0146, beamformer (Bfer) generates a null data packet announcement NDPA frame. ¶ 0153, beamformer (for example, an AP) generates and sends the NDPA frame, to notify the beamformee (for example, an STA) that needs to perform channel sounding; [Examiner’s Note: Yu1 teaches sending an NDPA to a target user (beamformee) to prepare for channel estimation.];
sending a null data packet (NDP) to the target user and performing channel estimation by the target user based on the NDP to determine channel state information (Yu1: ¶ 0004, after a short interframe space (SIPS), the AP sends a null data packet (NDP) without a data field. The STA performs channel estimation based on the NDP, and then feeds back channel state information (CSI); [Examiner’s Note: Yu1 discloses sending an NDP frame following SIFS after the NDPA, where the target user receives training fields to estimate the channel and derive CSI]);
sending a beamforming report poll (BRP) trigger frame to the target user to trigger the target user to feedback channel state information (Yu1: ¶ 0044, beamformee (for example, the STA) receives a trigger frame including a beamforming poll subtype, for example, a BRP trigger frame, for triggering one or more beamformees to feed back the beamforming reports. ¶ 0124, AP sends a beamforming report poll (BF Report Poll, BRP) trigger frame, to trigger the plurality of STAs that need to perform channel sounding to feedback beamforming reports simultaneously/concurrently); and receiving from the target user a beamforming report, wherein the beamforming report including the channel state information (Yu1: ¶ 0004, performs channel estimation based on the NDP, and then feeds back channel state information (CSI) in a beamforming report (BF Report) frame; [Examiner’s Note: Yu1 discloses receiving the beamforming feedback report frame containing the computed CSI from the target station]).
Yu1 does not explicitly disclose sending a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame to a pseudo user; wherein the NDPA includes multiple user information entries with one acting as a placeholder entry alongside the target user.
However, Yu2 teaches sending a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame to a pseudo user; wherein the NDPA includes multiple user information entries with one acting as a placeholder entry alongside the target user (Yu2: ¶ 0015, A beamformer sends a MAC frame, where the MAC frame includes at least two pieces of user information corresponding to a target beamformee, and at least one type of configuration parameters in configuration parameters included in the at least two pieces of user information have different values. ¶ 0159, For example, as shown in FIG. 16, AIDs of station information 1 and station information 2…are both an AID 1.; [Examiner Notes: Yu2 teaches sending an NDPA with multiple pieces of station information, which can function as a pseudo entry to fill a slot or define a specific segment. This structure allows the AP to send a frame that appears to address multiple logical entities (one real, one potentially “pseudo” or segmented) to achieve the desired feedback granularity.]).
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 Yu1 by further including, sending a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame to a pseudo user, as taught by Yu2, since doing so would have achieved the desirable result of allowing flexible configuration of different processing modes or resource units for feedback management within a single NDPA frame structure.
Regarding claim 9, Yu1 in view of Yu2 teaches the beamforming device according to claim 8.
Yu1 further teaches wherein the NDPA frame includes a first user information and a second user information; the first user information, related to the target user, indicates a normal user association identifier (AID) (Yu1: ¶ 0156, The first field ... includes one or more disambiguation bits...Each station information field includes one or more disambiguation bits. ¶ 0166, the first two octets in the first field ... may include an association identifier field, and a value of the association identifier field is greater than 2007; [Examiner Notes: Yu1 teaches multiple station information fields and the use of special AIDs (>2007) or reserved values.]).
Yu1 does not explicitly disclose the second user information, related to the pseudo user, indicates AID 0 or not-application (N/A) and/or reserved AID.
However, Yu2 teaches the second user information, related to the pseudo user, indicates AID 0 or not-application (N/A) and/or reserved AID (Yu2: ¶ 0015, A beamformer sends a MAC frame, where the MAC frame includes at least two pieces of user information corresponding to a target beamformee, and at least one type of configuration parameters in configuration parameters included in the at least two pieces of user information have different values. ¶ 0161, beamformee determines that AIDs included in two pieces of adjacent station information are different. ¶ 0105, Fig. 4…one or more reserved bits; [Examiner’s Note: Yu2 teaches multiple station info entries where one has a normal AID and the other acts as a configuration placeholder (pseudo user), which can be implemented with reserved AIDs]).
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 Yu1 by further including, the above-mentioned features, as taught by Yu2, since doing so would have achieved the desirable result of distinguishing the configuration role of the pseudo user from the target user, ensuring the beamformer can direct specific feedback modes without ambiguity and to provide flexibility in defining feedback.
Regarding claim 10, Yu1 in view of Yu2 teaches the beamforming device according to claim 9.
Yu1 further teaches wherein AID 2008-2042 or 2046 are N/A or reserved, which are used in the second user information (Yu1: ¶ 0166, a value greater than 2007. ¶ 0134, VHT STA of the earlier version considers the AID greater than 2047 as an AID of another STA. ¶ 0123, AID 12 indicates an STA that needs to perform channel sounding. The feedback type subfield indicates whether a feedback is a single-user feedback or a multi-user feedback.; [Examiner’s Note: Yu1 explicitly teaches using AIDs>2007, which encompasses 2008-2042 and 2046, as special/reserved values to prevent misreading.)]).
Yu1 does not explicitly second user information to indicate the pseudo user.
However, Yu2 teaches second user information to indicate the pseudo user (Yu2: ¶ 0015, A beamformer sends a MAC frame, where the MAC frame includes at least two pieces of user information corresponding to a target beamformee, and at least one type of configuration parameters in configuration parameters included in the at least two pieces of user information have different values. ¶ 0159, For example, as shown in FIG. 16, AIDs of station information 1 and station information 2…are both an AID 1.; [Examiner Notes: Yu2 teaches sending an NDPA with multiple pieces of station information, which can function as a pseudo entry to fill a slot or define a specific segment. This structure allows the AP to send a frame that appears to address multiple logical entities (one real, one potentially “pseudo” or segmented) to achieve the desired feedback granularity.]).
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 Yu1 by further including, second user information to indicate the pseudo user, as taught by Yu2, since doing so would have achieved the desirable result of allowing flexible configuration of different processing modes or resource units for feedback management within a single NDPA frame structure.
Regarding claim 11, Yu1 in view of Yu2 teaches the beamforming device according to claim 8.
Yu1 further teaches wherein a receiving address information of the NDPA frame is set to a broadcast address (Yu1: ¶ 0132, NDPA frame is usually sent in a broadcast manner).
Regarding claim 12, Yu1 in view of Yu2 teaches the beamforming device according to claim 8.
Yu1 further teaches wherein a receiving address information of the BRP trigger frame is set to a unicast address (Yu1: ¶ 0153, sends the NDPA frame, to notify the beamformee. ¶ 0201, trigger one or more beamformees to feed back the beamforming reports.; [Examiner Notes: Yu1 teaches specific addressing in the BRP trigger frame to initiate and notify beamforming feedback.]).
Regarding claim 13, Yu1 in view of Yu2 teaches the beamforming device according to claim 8.
Yu1 does not explicitly disclose wherein in a RU allocation subfield of a user information of the BRP trigger frame, RU allocation of the target user is set to full bandwidth.
However, Yu2 teaches wherein in a RU allocation subfield of a user information of the BRP trigger frame, RU allocation of the target user is set to full bandwidth (¶ 0096, If the MAC frame does not include the partial bandwidth information, the MAC frame is used to request the beamformee to feed back channel state information in an entire channel bandwidth; [Examiner Notes: Yu2 teaches that the absence of the partial bandwidth info, or specific settings, results in full bandwidth feedback]).
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 Yu1 by further including, wherein in a RU allocation subfield of a user information of the BRP trigger frame, RU allocation of the target user is set to full bandwidth, as taught by Yu2, since doing so would have achieved the desirable result of allowing the beamformer to request comprehensive channel data when needed, thereby balancing with the ability to request partial data.
Features of claims 1-6 correspond to features of claims 8-13, respectively, and are therefore rejected using the same rationale(s) and same prior art(s) applied to claims 8-13, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their base claim(s) and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior at does not disclose, teach or suggest the claimed specific sounding-overhead equation(s) of claims 7 and 14, i.e., wherein a sounding overhead SndOverhead is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
181
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the term “Tb1usrSndDur” indicates trigger based (TB) 1-user sounding FES duration with the target user and the pseudo user; the term “Tb2usrSndDur” indicates TB 2-user sounding FES duration with the target user and another target user; the term “SndPeriod1” indicates a sounding period of the target user; the term “SndPeriod2” indicates a sounding period of the another target user; and the term “SndPeriod1,SndPeriod2” indicates the least common multiple (LCM) of “SndPeriod1” and “SndPeriod2”. Furthermore, the prior at fails to teach or suggest a beamforming framework that dynamically calculates overhead by subtracting overlapping single-user durations (2 * Tb1usrSndDur) from the combined multi-user durations over a shared periodicity interval, including the use of LCM of the two sounding periods to account for overlapping TB 1-user sounding durations. This specific limitation provides a practical mechanism that prevents airtime inflation and optimizes MU-MIMO sounding sequences.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
KIM et al. (US 2016/0081075 A1); KIM et al. teaches that the access point sends a request message that not only asks for channel estimation feedback, but also carries allocation instructions for the reply. Those instructions can specify the channel/sub-band, the timing or order of transmission, and the set of devices that should respond. The second device then transmits a response message containing channel information according to that schedule. By aligning feedback timing across multiple stations, the system reduces wasted resources and avoids feedback becoming obsolete. See [¶¶ 0017-22, Figs. 7A-11C, 18A-18B].
AHN et al. (US 2022/0217791 A1); AHN et al. teaches specific operations where a wireless communication terminal may transmit or receive frames beyond the TXOP limit in controlled cases. It focuses on beamforming sounding exchanges, BRP-triggered feedback collection, dynamic fragmentation, and retransmission handling. The processor uses these exceptions to complete required frame sequences that would otherwise be interrupted by the TXOP cap. This is presented as a way to preserve efficiency while still managing fairness. See Figs. 17-19 and related text.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAJDI ALSOMIRI whose telephone number is (571) 270-0427. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-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 at (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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights