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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 7 recites, “at least one of a carrier frequency offset (CFO) or a sampling frequency offset (SFO)” (lines 1-2). It is suggested to replace it with “at least one of: a carrier frequency offset (CFO); or a sampling frequency offset (SFO)” for more clarity. Claim 15 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Claim 7 recites, “correcting frequency or timing offset” (line 4). It is suggested to replace it with “correcting a frequency or timing offset” for more clarity. Claim 15 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
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 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, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan et al (US Publication No. 2023/0062935 A1) in view of Yin et al (EP 3520272 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dehghan discloses, a method, comprising:
storing, at a wireless device, one or more physical layer (PHY) parameters determined when receiving a first wireless frame from a station (STA) [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0047, (step 520) storing, at WAP, the CSI determined for the given uplink for each antenna and or any selectable spatial coverages thereof to evaluate RX spatial states for uplink; further see steps 510, 514 and 516, the CSI is determined when receiving a signal/strength in the uplink];
configuring, before the future time, a PHY in the wireless device based on the one or more PHY parameters [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0048, the MIMO antenna array is set to the optimal spatial states for receiving each subsequent uplink using the information (i.e., Rx spatial states for uplink) gleaned in the evaluation block 500 of processes; further see ¶0049-0050, (step 560) setting MIMO antenna array into optimal spatial states for receiving the uplink based on the optimal spatial states]; and
receiving, using the configured PHY, a second wireless frame from the STA during the future time [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0049-0050, (step 566) receiving the uplink with the MIMO antenna array preset to the optimal spatial states for receiving the uplink].
Although Dehghan discloses, “configuring, before the future time, a PHY in the wireless device based on the one or more PHY parameters” as set forth above, Dehghan does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), identifying a future time when the STA will transmit wireless data to the wireless device.
However, Yin discloses, identifying a future time when the STA will transmit wireless data to the wireless device [¶00104-0105, base station 160 may determine an uplink scheduling timing for a scheduled uplink transmission from UE 102].
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 Dehghan with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Yin 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 Yin into the system of Dehghan would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., allowing to control uplink transmission timing and improve utilizing of wireless communication resources more efficiently, 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 3, Dehghan in view of Yin discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Dehghan discloses, wherein the wireless device is an access point (AP) [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0046, wireless access point (WAP)], wherein the PHY is part of a front end (FE) of a receiver in the AP [FIG. 4A; its related descriptions; ¶0033, the WAP 101 includes WiFi stage 102, including the MIMO WiFi baseband 103, and the analog front end (AFE) and Radio Frequency (RF) stages 104 thereof].
Regarding claim 4, Dehghan in view of Yin discloses, the method of claim 3 as set forth above.
Dehghan discloses, wherein configuring the PHY comprises setting a gain level of a FE amplifier in the receiver based on the one or more PHY parameters [FIGS. 4A and 4B; their related descriptions; ¶0040-0041, adjusting the gain of LNA 460/front end for received uplink].
Regarding claim 5, Dehghan in view of Yin discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Dehghan discloses, wherein the gain level is determined based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the first wireless frame [¶0045, each successive uplink received from the corresponding one(s) of the associated stations is evaluated on each antenna and for any selectable spatial coverage thereof, as to either or both the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) or channel condition; further see ¶0040-0041, adjusting the gain of NA for the recited uplink].
Regarding claim 6, Dehghan in view of Yin discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Dehghan discloses, wherein the one or more PHY parameters comprise channel state information (CSI) determined when receiving the first wireless frame [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0047, (step 520) storing, at WAP, the CSI determined for the given uplink for each antenna and or any selectable spatial coverages thereof to evaluate RX spatial states for uplink; further see steps 510, 514 and 516, the CSI is determined when receiving a signal/strength in the uplink], the method further comprising equalizing at least a portion of the second wireless frame based on the CSI [¶0043, Receive processing in the baseband stage includes the following shared and discrete components: an equalizer 472 to mitigate channel impairments which is coupled to the output of the DFTs 470].
Regarding claim 9, Dehghan discloses, a system of a wireless device [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0047-0050, wireless access point (WAP)], comprising:
one or more processors [¶0018, processing circuit 120; note that every network device has at least one processor];
one or more memories storing one or more programs, which, when executed on any combination of the one or more processors, performs operations [¶0018, memory 124 storing program code 124A which, when executed on the processor, perform operations; note that every network device has at least one memory storing program codes to perform operations].
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 11, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, Dehghan discloses, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media containing, in any combination, computer program code, which, when executed by a computer system, performs operations [¶0018, memory 124 storing program code 124A which, when executed on the processor, perform operations; note that every network device has at least one memory storing program codes to perform operations].
Since claim 17 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan et al (US Publication No. 2023/0062935 A1) in view of Yin et al (EP 3520272 A1) and further in view of Sheriff et al (US Publication No. 2021/0364597 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Dehghan in view of Yin discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Dehghan discloses, wherein the first and second wireless frames are transmitted [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0047-0050, uplink signals received respectively through steps 508 and 566], Dehghan in view of Yin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sheriff discloses, frame(s) are transmitted using a deterministic traffic technique for Wi-Fi [¶0016, FTM is essential to the implementation of deterministic communication methods such as 802.1 Time Sensitive networking (TSN) into Wi-Fi; further see ¶0014, fine timing measurement (FTM) frames received at the receiving device from a sending device].
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 Dehghan in view of Yin with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Sheriff 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 Sheriff into the system of Dehghan in view of Yin would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to provide predictable latency and reliable frame delivery for time-sensitive communications, 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 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan et al (US Publication No. 2023/0062935 A1) in view of Yin et al (EP 3520272 A1) and further in view of Lou et al (US Publication No. 2017/0164387 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Dehghan in view of Yin discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Dehghan in view of Yin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lou discloses, wherein the one or more PHY parameters comprise at least one of a carrier frequency offset (CFO) or a sampling frequency offset (SFO) determined when receiving the first wireless frame, the method further comprising correcting frequency or timing offset of the second wireless frame using the CFO or SFO [¶0131, AP may apply a frequency domain filter and a CFO correction and a timing correction timing correction at the receiver as described herein].
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 Dehghan in view of Yin with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Lou 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 Lou into the system of Dehghan in view of Yin would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to improve decoding accuracy by correcting frequency and timing offsets, 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 15, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan et al (US Publication No. 2023/0062935 A1) in view of Yin et al (EP 3520272 A1) and further in view of Dak et al (US Publication No. 2015/0155894 A1).
Regarding claim 8 Dehghan in view of Yin discloses, the method of claim 3 as set forth above.
Dehghan in view of Yin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Dak discloses, wherein the one or more PHY parameters comprise an energy detection threshold, wherein configuring the PHY comprises adjusting the energy detection threshold based on a RSSI associated with first wireless frame [¶0036, when the RSSI is low, the AT state module 280 can determine a new antenna tuner state that maximizes receiver sensitivity by minimizing the insertion loss in the receive RF signals 228].
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 Dehghan in view of Yin with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Dak 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 Dak into the system of Dehghan in view of Yin would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to improve receiver sensing accuracy by adapting energy detection threshold to current signal conditions, 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 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kondareddy et al (US Patent No. 10615829 B1) [abstract]
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.
If 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
Prosecution Insights