77DETAILED 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-21 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered references Tian et al. (US 20160234831), Park et al. (US 20170135040 A1), Huang et al. (US 20190349067 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited references follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian et al. (US 20160234831), hereinafter, Tian.
Regarding claim 1:
Tian discloses a method for facilitating communication between a first node (Fig. 2, STA 120) and a second node (Fig. 2, AP 110) operating in a communications network (Fig. 2), the method comprising, by a processing unit (Fig. 2, controller 280; paragraph [0045]) for the first node:
causing the first node to send, to the second node, a first transmission to configure a communication channel between the first node and the second node, the first transmission including a first frame including a first capability indicator, the first capability indicator indicating a first multi-user multi-input multi-output (MU-MIMO) capability of a transmitter of the first node the first MU-MIMO capability including a first Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) processable by the first node or a first number of spatial streams (NSS) processable by the first node (Paragraph [0058], STA 120 sends capability indication (claimed first capability indicator) indicating number of spatial streams (claimed first number of spatial streams (NSS)) the STA 120 can use in a UL-MU-MIMO transmission (claimed first MU-MIMO capability)).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is anticipated by Tian based on a rationale similar to the one used to reject claim 1 above. Tian’s STA 120 is claimed network node and AP is claimed second network node, claimed processing unit corresponds to all the processors in STA (See paragraphs [0039]-[0045] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 is anticipated by Tian based on a rationale similar to the one used to reject claim 1 above. See paragraphs [0107], [0108] for support of the computer program product comprising non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding claims 4 and 14:
Tian discloses wherein the first frame comprises an Association Response frame, the first node is a station (STA) and the second node is an access point (AP) (Paragraphs [0058], [0059]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19:
Tian discloses the method and processing unit wherein the first MU-MIMO capability includes a transmitter MCS for a spatial stream (Paragraph [0070]).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Park et al. (US 20170135040 A1), hereinafter, Park.
Regarding claims 2 and 12:
Tian further discloses the method and the corresponding processing unit, further comprising, by the first node: receiving a second transmission from the second node, the second transmission including a second frame including a second capability indicator for indicating a second MU MIMO capability of the second node, the second MU-MIMO capability including a second MCS processable by the second node or a second NSS processable by the second node (Paragraphs [0059]-[0060], AP 110 is second node sending capability information (claimed second capability indicator) indicating maximum number of spatial streams a single STA can use (i.e. claimed second NSS processable by the second node ) in an UL-MU-MIMO communication ).
Thus, Tian discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 12, but fails to explicitly disclose that the capability is of the transmitter of the second node.
However, Park discloses an AP (claimed second node) transmitting a frame including DL MU capabilities (capability of the transmitter of the second node.
) (See Paragraphs [0087], [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tian’s disclosure so that the AP (claimed second node) transmits its DL MU capabilities (capability is of the transmitter of the second node) as disclosed by Park, thereby resulting in the claimed invention. It would have been obvious so as to allow the STA (first node) to verify that AP can perform DL MU transmission (Paragraphs [0090], [0091]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
Tian discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above. Tian further discloses wherein a frame from an access point (AP) comprises a Beacon frame, the second node is an AP and the first node is a STA (Paragraph [0059]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the AP of Tian be the first node and the STA of Tian be the second node (Paragraph [0059]), since these are merely labels to the two nodes communicating with each other.
Thus Tian discloses all the limitations of claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose that the capability is of the transmitter of the first node (AP).
However, Park discloses an AP (claimed first node) transmitting a frame including DL MU capabilities (capability of the transmitter of the second node.
) (See Paragraphs [0087], [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tian’s disclosure so that the AP (claimed first node) transmits its DL MU capabilities (capability is of the transmitter of the first node) as disclosed by Park, thereby resulting in the claimed invention. It would have been obvious so as to allow the STA (second node) to verify that AP can perform DL MU transmission (Paragraphs [0090], [0091]).
Regarding claims 9 and 20:
Tian and Park disclose all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 above. Tian further discloses the AP (claimed second node) comprises a receiver for spatial processing using minimum mean square error (MMSE) detection algorithm (Paragraph [0042]). Tian also discloses that the receiver of AP (second node) preforms processing that is complementary to the transmitter of the STA (first node).
Tian and Park fail to explicitly disclose, wherein the first capability indicator or the second capability indicator includes one of a minimum mean square error (MMSE) detection algorithm, a maximum- likelihood detection (MLD) algorithm, or a sphere decoding (SD) algorithm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Tian’s second capability indicator include an indicator about the processing performed by the second node, i.e. include MMSE detection algorithm thereby arriving at claimed invention. It would have been obvious so as to notify the first node and ensure proper complementary functionality between the first and second nodes.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Huang et al. (US 20190349067 A1), hereinafter, Huang.
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
Tian discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above, but fails to explicitly disclose the method and processing unit wherein the first frame comprises a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame.
However, Huang discloses the first frame comprises a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame (Paragraph [0096], frame that indicates capabilities including number of spatial streams (claimed first frame) comprises a data packet announcement frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tian’s disclosure so the first frame comprises a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame as disclosed by Huang, thereby resulting in the claimed invention. It would have been obvious since the use of NDPA frames allows nodes to notify other nodes to perform channel detection/sensing operations.
Regarding claims 6 and 16:
Tian discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above, but fails to explicitly disclose the method and processing unit wherein the first frame comprises a channel state information (CSI) feedback (FB) action frame.
However, Huang discloses the method wherein the first frame comprises a channel state information (CSI) feedback (FB) action frame (Paragraph [0038], CQI action frame in sounding feedback frame from STA is claimed channel state information (CSI) feedback (FB) action frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tian’s disclosure so the first frame comprises channel state information (CSI) feedback (FB) action frame as disclosed by Huang, thereby resulting in the claimed invention. It would have been obvious so as to allow for higher signaling capacity.
Regarding claims 7 and 17:
Tian discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above, but fails to explicitly disclose the method and processing unit wherein the first frame comprises an Extremely High- Throughput (EHT) Compressed Beam Forming (BF) Action frame.
However, Huang discloses the method wherein the first frame comprises an Extremely High- Throughput (EHT) Compressed Beam Forming (BF) Action frame (Paragraphs [0039], [0040], next generation compressed beamforming action frame is (EHT) Compressed Beam Forming (BF) Action frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tian’s disclosure so the first frame comprises EHT Compressed Beam Forming (BF) Action frame as disclosed by Huang, thereby resulting in the claimed invention. It would have been obvious so as to allow for next generation devices to communicate with legacy devices.
Regarding claims 8 and 18:
Tian discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above, but fails to explicitly disclose the method and processing unit wherein the first frame comprises a compressed beamforming action (CBA) frame.
However, Huang discloses the method wherein the first frame comprises a compressed beamforming action (CBA) frame (Paragraphs [0039], [0040], next generation compressed beamforming action frame is Compressed Beam Forming (BF) Action frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tian’s disclosure so the first frame comprises Compressed Beam Forming (BF) Action frame as disclosed by Huang, thereby resulting in the claimed invention. It would have been obvious so as to allow for initiating beamforming with reduced size of feedback/data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights