DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Cross Reference to Related Applications
2. This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/087,095 filed November 2, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/277,479 filed February 15, 2019, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,826,586 on November 3, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/510,127 filed March 9, 2017, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,211,901 on February 19, 2019, which is the U.S. National Stage, under 35 U.S.C. § 371, of International Application No. PCT/US2015/049744 filed September 11, 2015, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/049,357 filed September 11, 2014 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/073,689 filed October 31, 2014, the contents of which are incorporated by reference.
Claims status
3. This office action is a response to an application filed on June 03, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Drawings
4. The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on June 03, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on June 03, 2024.
Double Patenting
6. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Patent No. (US 10,826,586 B2) and 1-18 of Patent No. (US 12,074,668 B2). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application and Patent Numbers (US 10,826,586 B2) and (US 12,074,668 B2) all disclose the method of determining using a carrier sense multiple access protocol, to ignore a payload portion of the packet based on information contained in the preamble. (please see below the mapping of claims; the table below shows only Example of Claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of Patent No. US 10,826,586 B2 and claim 1 of US 12,074,668 B2).
Claim
Instant Application No. 18/763,156 (limitations)
Patent No. US 10,826,586 B2 (limitations)
Claim
1
A method for use in a station (STA), the method comprising:
receiving, by the STA from a first access point (AP), a first wireless signal, wherein the first wireless signal includes a preamble of a packet, wherein a received energy level of the first wireless signal exceeds a clear channel assessment (CCA) threshold; adjusting, by the STA, the CCA threshold to account for a payload portion of the packet; and
receiving, by the STA from a second AP, a second wireless signal using the adjusted CCA threshold.
A method for use in a station (STA), the method comprising:
receiving, by the STA, a wireless signal including a preamble of a packet, wherein a received energy level of the signal exceeds a clear channel assessment (CCA) threshold;
determining, by the STA, using a carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) protocol, to ignore a payload portion of the packet based on information contained in the preamble;
issuing, by the STA, a primitive to stop reception of the packet; and
returning, by the STA, to a receive state based on the primitive
1
Claim
Instant Application No. 18/763,156 (limitations)
Patent No. US 12,074,668 B2 (limitations)
Claim
1
A method for use in a station (STA), the method comprising:
receiving, by the STA from a first access point (AP), a first wireless signal, wherein the first wireless signal includes a preamble of a packet, wherein a received energy level of the first wireless signal exceeds a clear channel assessment (CCA) threshold; adjusting, by the STA, the CCA threshold to account for a payload portion of the packet; and
receiving, by the STA from a second AP, a second wireless signal using the adjusted CCA threshold.
A method for use in a station (STA), the method comprising:
receiving, by the STA, a wireless signal including a preamble of a packet, wherein a received energy level of the wireless signal exceeds a clear channel assessment (CCA) threshold, wherein the CCA threshold is a received channel power indicator (RCPI) level; issuing, by the STA, a primitive to stop reception of the packet; and returning, by the STA, to a receive state based on the primitive.
1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. 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 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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONGE et al. (US 2011/0014910 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Yonge” in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0328268 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Zhu”.
Regarding claim 1, Yonge discloses a method for use in a station (STA) (Figs. 1-2, 4-7, determining a signal strength value for a given signal comprises detecting a preamble of the given signal), the method comprising:
receiving, by the STA from a first access point (AP), a first wireless signal, wherein the first wireless signal includes a preamble of a packet (Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [0050], [0060], [0084], a station determines whether detection criteria are met based on at least an initial portion of the preamble), wherein a received energy level of the first wireless signal exceeds a clear channel assessment (CCA) threshold (Fig. 1-2, paragraphs [0050], [0060], [0084], if the received signal strength is above the signal strength required by the detection threshold, the station will consider the signal, stop contending and update its back-off parameters).
While Yonge implicitly refers to “adjusting, by the STA, the CCA threshold to account for a payload portion of the packet; and receiving, by the STA from a second AP, a second wireless signal using the adjusted CCA threshold” (Figs. 1, 4-7, paragraphs [0010], [0072], [0080], pending transmission uses signal strength level information based on information in the transmissions' preambles; preconfigured with at least two detection thresholds values e.g., threshold—1, and threshold—2; if a signal strength value of a signal received after selecting the detection threshold is in excess of the detection threshold, suspending a contention process among the subset of stations), Zhu from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses adjusting, by the STA, the CCA threshold (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0045], [0078], first TX 110 may indicate that reuse of the first TXOP is permitted and/or may indicate one or more CCA thresholds by setting one or more bits included in a preamble of the message 120) to account for a payload portion of the packet (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0045], [0078], interference level associated with the first TX 110 based on first data 226, or another transmission by the first TX 110); and
receiving, by the STA from a second AP (Figs. 1-2), a second wireless signal using the adjusted CCA threshold (Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0066], initiate transmission of the second message 150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “adjusting, by the STA, the CCA threshold to account for a payload portion of the packet; and receiving, by the STA from a second AP, a second wireless signal using the adjusted CCA threshold” as taught by Zhu, in the system of Yonge, so that it would mitigate the possibility of interference caused by the transmit opportunity reuse in smaller and more powerful computing devices (Zhu, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Yonge discloses determining, by the STA, using a carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) protocol, to ignore a payload portion of the packet (Figs. 1, 4-7, paragraphs [0010], [0072], [0080], if a signal strength value of a signal received after selecting the detection threshold is in excess of the detection threshold, suspending a contention process among the subset of stations) based on information contained in the preamble of the packet (Figs. 1, 4-7, paragraphs [0010], [0072], [0080], signal strength level information based on information in the transmissions' preambles).
Regarding claim 6, Yonge in view of Zhu disclose the method according to claim 1.
Zhu further discloses the adjusting includes accounting for a received energy level of the payload portion of the packet (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0073], [0078], interference level associated with TX 110 based on data 226).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the adjusting includes accounting for a received energy level of the payload portion of the packet” as taught by Zhu, in the system of Yonge, so that it would mitigate the possibility of interference caused by the transmit opportunity reuse in smaller and more powerful computing devices (Zhu, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Yonge in view of Zhu disclose the method according to claim 1.
Zhu further discloses the adjusting includes setting the CCA threshold (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0073], [0078], default CCA threshold may be associated with a default transmit power used by the first TX 110) using the received energy level of the payload portion of the packet (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0073], [0078], interference level associated with TX 110 based on data 226) and a margin (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0073], [0078], first control portion 224 may indicate the reuse CCA threshold (e.g., as an absolute reuse CCA threshold value or as an offset (e.g., delta) value to be added to or subtracted from a default CCA threshold value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the adjusting includes setting the CCA threshold using the received energy level of the payload portion of the packet and a margin” as taught by Zhu, in the system of Yonge, so that it would mitigate the possibility of interference caused by the transmit opportunity reuse in smaller and more powerful computing devices (Zhu, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 7.
10. Claims 3, 9, 10, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONGE et al. (US 2011/0014910 A1 as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Yonge” in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0328268 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Zhu” in view of Grandhi et al. (US 2013/0230035 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Grandhi”.
Regarding claim 3, Yonge in view of Zhu disclose the method according to claim 2.
Neither Yonge nor Zhu explicitly discloses “the determination to ignore the payload portion of the packet is based on an RXVECTOR”.
However, Grandhi from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the determination to ignore the payload portion of the packet is based on an RXVECTOR (paragraph [0178], PHY-RXSTART.indication primitive to the MAC sublayer and the time when the local PHY layer issued a PHY-RXEND.indication primitive to the MAC sublayer for the same PPDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the determination to ignore the payload portion is based on an RXVECTOR” as taught by Grandhi, in the combined system of Yonge and Zhu, so that it would provide modifications to the primary beacon made for small bandwidth transmission to support short beacons and multiple bandwidth modes (Grandhi, paragraph [0004])
.
Regarding claim 9, Yonge in view of Zhu disclose the method according to claim 1.
While Yonge in view of Zhu implicitly refers to “issuing, by the STA, a primitive to stop reception of the packet; and returning, by the STA, to a receive state based on the primitive” (Yonge, Figs. 1, 4-7, paragraphs [0010], [0072], [0080], pending transmission uses signal strength level information based on information in the transmissions' preambles; preconfigured with at least two detection thresholds values e.g., threshold—1, and threshold—2; if a signal strength value of a signal received after selecting the detection threshold is in excess of the detection threshold, suspending a contention process among the subset of stations), Grandhi from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses issuing, by the STA (Fig. 17, paragraphs [0178], PHY-RXSTOP.request 1701 primitive is a request by the MAC sublayer to the local PHY entity to stop processing a PPDU that the PHY entity is currently receiving), a primitive to stop reception of the packet (Fig. 17, paragraphs [0178], effect of receipt of this primitive by the PHY entity may be to stop the local receive state machine, including issuing a PMD_RXSTOP.request 1703 to the PMD sublayer); and
returning, by the STA (Fig. 17, paragraphs [0179], [0189], local PHY entity may start to monitor the wireless medium at the scheduled end of the PPDU whose processing has been stopped or at the end of the TXOP and issue a PHY-CCA.indication (IDLE) to the MAC sublayer), to a receive state based on the primitive (Fig. 17, paragraphs [0179], [0189], PacketEndTime may indicate the end of the PPDU that was previously being received but whose processing was stopped by the PHY-RXSTOP.request 1701 primitive by the local MAC sublayer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “issuing, by the STA, a primitive to stop reception of the packet; and returning, by the STA, to a receive state based on the primitive” as taught by Grandhi, in the combined system of Yonge and Zhu, so that it would provide modifications to the primary beacon made for small bandwidth transmission to support short beacons and multiple bandwidth modes (Grandhi, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Yonge in view of Zhu and Grandhi disclose the method according to claim 9.
Grandhi further discloses the primitive is a PHY_RXSTOP.request primitive (Fig. 17, paragraph [0178], PHY-RXSTOP.request primitive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the primitive is a PHY_RXSTOP.request primitive” as taught by Grandhi, in the combined system of Yonge and Zhu, so that it would provide modifications to the primary beacon made for small bandwidth transmission to support short beacons and multiple bandwidth modes (Grandhi, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 10.
11. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONGE et al. (US 2011/0014910 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Yonge” in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0328268 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Zhu” in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0112107 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding claim 4, Yonge in view of Zhu disclose the method according to claim 1.
Neither Yonge nor Zhu explicitly discloses “the preamble of the packet is received by the STA via a beamformed signal”.
However, Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the preamble of the packet is received by the STA via a beamformed signal (paragraph [0009], beamformed transmission and reception is for both preamble and payload of each frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide discloses “the preamble of the packet is received by the STA via a beamformed signal” as taught by Wang, in the combined system of Yonge and Zhu, so that it would provide beamforming enhancements in wireless communications systems specifically relate to a solution is sought to utilize beamforming as a way for exploring the possibility of spatial reuse to improve network capacity (Wang, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 4.
12. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONGE et al. (US 2011/0014910 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Yonge” in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0328268 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Zhu” in view of Sampath et al. (US 2015/0055587 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Sampath”.
Regarding claim 5, Yonge in view of Zhu disclose the method according to claim 1.
Neither Yonge nor Zhu explicitly discloses “the preamble of the packet is received by the STA via an omni-directional signal”.
However, Sampath from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the preamble of the packet is received by the STA via an omni-directional signal (Fig. 7, paragraph [0061], PHY-Omni is a portion of the PPDU 700 preamble that is not precoded and is therefore sent to and received by all STAs 206 within range of the transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide discloses “the preamble of the packet is received by the STA via an omni-directional signal” as taught by Sampath, in the combined system of Yonge and Zhu, so that it would facilitate user mobility and rapid field deployment relates generally to systems, methods, and devices for increasing reuse in wireless communication (Sampath, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 5.
13. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONGE et al. (US 2011/0014910 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Yonge” in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0328268 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 03, 2024), hereinafter “Zhu” in view of WO 2007/104718 A1, hereinafter “WO’718”.
Regarding claim 8, Yonge in view of Zhu disclose the method according to claim 1.
Neither Yonge nor Zhu explicitly discloses “the CCA threshold is a received channel power indicator (RCPI) level”.
However, WO’718 from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the CCA threshold is a received channel power indicator (RCPI) level (page 19, line 17-32, noise histogram reporting containing the RPI identities in each of the eight power ranges defined by the measured RCPI in the specified channel over a specified measurement duration when CCA indicates idle the bigger report containing the RCPI that is the received channel power of the beacon of proved response frame in dBms, the frame report containing the RCPI, i.e. the received power of the received frame NDBM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the CCA threshold is a received channel power indicator (RCPI) level” as taught by WO’718, in the system of Yonge, so that it would provide requested information in a simple, fast and efficient way, so that a change of access technology can be executed seamlessly without any reduction in the efficiency of the communications system nor increasing the amount of signalling traffic (WO’718, page 5, line 7-15).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/SITHU KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights