DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 08/26/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the claim interpretation under 112(f), Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Thus, the 112(f) claim interpretations have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 08/26/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processing unit coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit is operative to” receive data packets . . . ; estimate . . . a channel condition . . . ; determine an amount of variation . . .; and provide the variation”, as recited in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the limitation, “a processing unit coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit is operative to” receive data packets . . . ; estimate . . . a channel condition . . . ; determine an amount of variation . . .; and provide the variation”, it appears that the following are corresponding structures described in the specification: see, “a circuit utilizing a microprocessor”, “a single chip containing electronic elements or microprocessors” in FIG. 1 and ¶0020 and “processing unit 510” in FIG. 5 and ¶0034.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4-6, 8-9, 13-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schel et al (US Publication No. 2016/0127019 A1) in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2013/0177090 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schel discloses, a method comprising:
receiving, by a station, data packets from an Access Point (AP) over a channel established between the AP and the station [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138, the receiver monitors changes in the channel since the last explicit sounding feedback by updating channel calculations using the preamble field, e.g. the VHT-LTF field in beamformed data packets from the transmitter; further see ¶0137, processing begins with decision process 870 in which a determination is made as to whether an explicit sounding request has been received from a transmitting one of the WLAN nodes, i.e. either one of the station nodes, or the WAP node; see ¶0108, the receiving node 502 which may be a WAP or a station determines the link channel Hn]; note that the receiver (i.e., receiving node 502/station) receives data packets from the transmitter (i.e., WAP) established between the WAP and the station];
estimating, by the station, for each of a plurality data packet received after a latest Channel Sounding Information (CSI) report, a channel condition of the channel based on a . . . Long Training Field symbols in the respective data packets [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138, the receiver monitors changes in the channel since the last explicit sounding feedback by updating channel calculations using the preamble field, e.g. the VHT-LTF field in beamformed data packets from the transmitter];
determining, by the station, an amount of variation in the channel condition estimates generated for the data packet received after the latest CSI report [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138, the receiver monitors changes in the channel since the last explicit sounding feedback by updating channel calculations using the preamble field, e.g. the VHT-LTF field in beamformed data packets from the transmitter. . . . In process 886 the receiver compares current CSI to stored CSAI to determine whether changes in the channel since the last explicit sounding feedback warrant notification of change to the transmitter]; and
determining, by the station, whether the latest CSI report is still valid based on the amount of variation [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138, control is then passed to decision process 888. In decision process 888 a determination is made as to whether the change in the channel is above a threshold amount. The magnitude of the threshold is such as to avoid notifications to the transmitter of insignificant changes or minor fluctuations in the channel that do not substantially degrade communications. If channel variations are below the threshold amount then control returns to process 884 for continued monitoring of the channel].
Schel does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), estimating a channel condition of the channel based on Legacy Long Training Field (L-LTF) symbols in the respective data packets.
However, Yang discloses, estimating a channel condition of the channel based on Legacy Long Training Field (L-LTF) symbols in respective data packets [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0132, wireless device 202b receives data unit 900 including training symbols 914 (further including L-LTF 914a and 914b) and see ¶0133 and 136-0138, perform channel estimate using the L-LTF 914; further see ¶0076 and 0085, receiving data units; note that channel estimating is performed for respective data units received].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Schel with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Yang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Yang into the system of Schel would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enable a receiver to estimate channel fading or distortion over a wireless link to improve reliability of a wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, Schel in view of Yang discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Schel discloses, determining, by the station, that the latest CSI report needs to be updated in response to determining that the latest CSI report is not valid [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138, if the channel has changed since the last explicit sounding by more than the threshold amount then control is passed to process 890. In process 890 the receiver feeds forward to the transmitter indicia of the change in CSI between the transmitter and receiver].
Regarding claim 5, Schel in view of Yang discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Schel discloses, sending, by the station, a report comprising determination that the latest CSI report needs to be updated [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138, a) the current channel matrix “H”; b) the beamforming matrix “V” and sigma “Σ” or other indicator of the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); c) a condensed form of either the channel or beamforming matrices pertaining information only as to those coefficients which have changed significantly; and d) a change notification only, without any indication of the amount of the change itself].
Regarding claim 6, Schel in view of Yang discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Schel discloses, sending, by the station, a report comprising determination that the latest CSI report is not valid [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138, a) the current channel matrix “H”; b) the beamforming matrix “V” and sigma “Σ” or other indicator of the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); c) a condensed form of either the channel or beamforming matrices pertaining information only as to those coefficients which have changed significantly; and d) a change notification only, without any indication of the amount of the change itself].
Regarding claim 8, Schel in view of Yang discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Schel does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Yang discloses, estimating the channel condition of the channel based on the symbols in each of the data packets [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0132, wireless device 202b receives data unit 900 including training symbols 914 (further including L-LTF 914a and 914b) and see ¶00133 and 136-0138, perform channel estimate using the L-LTF 914; further regarding “data packets” received by a station from an AP, please see ¶0073 and 0076, “one or more packets or data units in a wireless signal” and ¶0194].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Yang in the system of Schel for similar rationes as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Schel discloses, a system [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138, receiver/station] comprising:
a memory storage [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138-0139, memory element; note that every network system has at least one memory]; and
a processing unit coupled to the memory storage [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138-0139, processor coupled to the memory; note that every network system has at least one processor coupled to the memory], wherein the processing unit [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138-0139, processor is operative to: . . .
provide the variation in the channel condition to the AP [¶0138, in process 890 the receiver feeds forward to the transmitter indicia of the change in CSI between the transmitter and receiver. In alternate embodiments of the invention that indicia may comprise any one or all of the following: a) the current channel matrix “H”; b) the beamforming matrix “V” and sigma “Σ” or other indicator of the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); c) a condensed form of either the channel or beamforming matrices pertaining information only as to those coefficients which have changed significantly; and d) a change notification only].
Since claim 9 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 9 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Schel discloses, a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions [FIG. 8C; its related descriptions; ¶0138-0139, memory element storing program instructions which when executed perform a method; note that every station has at least one memory].
Since claim 14 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Claims 2, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schel et al (US Publication No. 2016/0127019 A1) in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2013/0177090 A1) and further in view of Nilsson et al (US Publication No. 2015/0207646 A1)1.
Regarding claim 2, Schel in view of Yang discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Schel in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nilsson discloses, determining a standard deviation in the channel condition estimated so far from the latest CSI report [¶0056 and 0066, standard deviation determination of the channel estimates].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Schel in view of Yang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Nilsson to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Nilsson into the system of Schel in view of Yang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enable a receiver to estimate channel fading or distortion over a wireless link to improve reliability of a wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Claims 3, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schel et al (US Publication No. 2016/0127019 A1) in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2013/0177090 A1) and further in view of Khairmar et al (US Patent No. 10,218,542 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Schel in view of Yang discloses, the method of claim 1 and particularly “the L-LTF symbols” as set forth above.
Schel in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Khairmar discloses, determining a difference between known values of the L-LTF symbols and received values of the L-LTF symbols [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; column 7, lines 11-13, (step 210) the device can compare a received training symbol to a known training symbol to determine how the channel impacts gain and phase].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Schel in view of Yang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Khairmar to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Khairmar into the system of Schel in view of Yang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to determine a difference of newly received values from known values to make channel estimation easier and correct channel effects for accurate data recovery, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Claims 7, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schel et al (US Publication No. 2016/0127019 A1) in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2013/0177090 A1) and further in view of Breit et al (US Publication No. 2011/0235533 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Schel in view of Yang discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Schel in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Breit discloses, sending, by the station, the report in an acknowledgement message [¶0102-0103, each station may reply with a message based on the calculated metric. For example, the message may have one of the following types: a full CSI report, a Null or Acknowledgement (ACK) frame, or a different. The Null or ACK frame may be a packet containing no CSI, indicating the channel has not changed significantly since a previous CSI transmission].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Schel in view of Yang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Breit to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Breit into the system of Schel in view of Yang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring to avoid unnecessary feedback and reduce signaling overhead, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Lee was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
Prosecution Insights