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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
RE claim 15, the claim recites the limitation "transmit a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) in the TXOP to at least one third apparatus with a first transmission power equal to or lower than a second transmission power indicated by the second transmission power information." in lines 9-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as at this point in the claim no recitation of any TXOP has been made to establish which TXOP this refers to. Examiner believes it was merely left off inadvertently when drafting the apparatus version of this claim. Nevertheless, correction is necessary.
RE claims 16-18, the claims suffer from the deficiencies as set forth above as they fail to further clarify. Claims 16 and 18 also recite “the TXOP” without proper antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
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 timewise 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-13 and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,475 (The Han Patent hereafter).
RE claim 1, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is merely the apparatus form of claim 1 of the Han Patent, which is a method performed by an apparatus. As set forth the by the table below, the method is the same. Claim 1 of the instant application merely adds a generic transceiver and circuitry to now claim the apparatus itself with no additional broadening or narrowing limitations. Such generic components are known in the art to be inherent to an “apparatus for wireless communication”. As such, claim 1 of the instant application is an obvious variation upon claim 1 of the Han Patent.
Claim 1 of the application
Claim 1 of the Han Patent
A wireless communication method performed by a first apparatus, the method comprising:
A first apparatus for wireless communication, the first apparatus comprising: a transceiver; and a processing circuitry configured to:
acquiring, by the first apparatus, a transmit opportunity (TXOP) for transmitting a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) with a first transmission power;
acquire a transmit opportunity (TXOP) through the transceiver for transmitting a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) with a first transmission power;
selecting, by the first apparatus, a second apparatus for sharing the TXOP to a third apparatus based on a path loss between the first apparatus and the second apparatus;
select a second apparatus for sharing the TXOP to a third apparatus based on a path loss between the first apparatus and the second apparatus;
determining, by the first apparatus, a limit for a second transmission power of the second apparatus and sharing the TXOP with the second apparatus based at least in part on the determined limit for the second transmission power;
determine a limit for a second transmission power of the second apparatus through the transceiver for sharing the TXOP with the second apparatus based at least in part on the determined limit for the second transmission power;
and transmitting, by the first apparatus, the first PPDU to the third apparatus with the first transmission power in the shared TXOP.
and transmit the first PPDU to the third apparatus through the transceiver in the shared TXOP
RE claim 5, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the second transmission power based on a first path loss and a second path loss, the first path loss comprising a path loss between the first apparatus and the third apparatus and the second path loss comprising a path loss between the second apparatus and the third apparatus (Claim 4 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 6, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 5 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the second transmission power based on a difference between a first reception power of the third apparatus and a second reception power of the third apparatus being equal to or greater than a reference value, wherein the first reception power corresponds to a difference between the first transmission power and the first path loss, and wherein the second reception power corresponds to a difference between the second transmission power and the second path loss (Claim 5 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 7, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 5 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive information about the first path loss and the second path loss through the transceiver from the third apparatus (Claim 7 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 8, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to transmit apparatus identification information including an identifier of the second apparatus and information about the second transmission power to the second apparatus through the transceiver (Claim 6 claims the same method steps. Claim 8 of the instant application is further the result of eliminating intervening claim 4 from the scope of claim 6 of the Han Patent).
RE claim 9, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: allocate at least one first acknowledgement corresponding to the first PPDU and at least one second acknowledgement corresponding to a second PPDU to respective different radio resources, wherein the second PPDU is transmitted by the second apparatus in the TXOP; and transmit resource allocation information about the at least one first acknowledgement and the at least one second acknowledgement to the second apparatus through the transceiver (Claim 8 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 10, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 9 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: allocate the at least one first acknowledgement to a first band; and allocate the at least one second acknowledgement to a second band that is different from the first band. (Claim 9 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 11, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to output a beacon frame comprising capability information and transmission power information, the capability information indicating a support for spatial reuse and the transmission power information indicating a transmission power of the beacon frame through the transceiver (Claim 10 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 12, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a limit for a third transmission power of a fourth apparatus for sharing the TXOP with the fourth apparatus (Claim 11 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 13, the Han Patent claims the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: allocate a transmission of the second apparatus and a transmission of the fourth apparatus to respective different radio resources; and transmit resource allocation information about the transmission of the second apparatus and the transmission of the fourth apparatus to the second apparatus and the fourth apparatus (Claim 12 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 15, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of the instant application is merely the apparatus form of claim 13 of the Han Patent, which is a method performed by an apparatus. As set forth the by the table below, the method is the same. Claim 15 of the instant application merely adds a generic transceiver and circuitry to now claim the apparatus itself with no additional broadening or narrowing limitations. Such generic components are known in the art to be broadly inherent to an “apparatus for wireless communication”. As such, claim 15 of the instant application is an obvious variation upon claim 13 of the Han Patent. Note further that claim 15 of the instant application eliminates the struck through portion below, which further gives rise to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above for the claim.
Claim 15 of the application
Claim 13 of the Han Patent
A second apparatus for wireless communication, the second apparatus comprising: a transceiver; and a processing circuitry configured to:
A wireless communication method performed by a second apparatus
output a frame comprising a first field including capability information and a second field including first transmission power information, the capability information indicating support for spatial reuse and the first transmission power information indicating a first transmission power of the frame;
outputting, by the second apparatus, a frame comprising a first field including capability information and a second field including first transmission power information, the capability information indicating support for spatial reuse and the first transmission power information indicating a transmission power of the frame;
receive second transmission power information from a first apparatus;
receiving, by the second apparatus, second transmission power information from the first apparatus;
and transmit a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) in the TXOP to at least one third apparatus with a first transmission power equal to or lower than a second transmission power indicated by the second transmission power information.
and transmitting, by the second apparatus, a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) in the TXOP to at least one third apparatus with a first transmission power equal to or lower than a second transmission power indicated by the second transmission power information
RE claim 16, the Han Patent claims the second apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive apparatus identification information from the first apparatus; and identify sharing of the TXOP based on the apparatus identification information (Claim 14 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 17, the Han Patent claims the second apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive resource allocation information about at least one acknowledgement corresponding to the PPDU from the first apparatus; and transmit the resource allocation information to the at least one third apparatus (Claim 15 claims the same method steps).
RE claim 18, the Han Patent claims the second apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive at least one second acknowledgement from the at least one third apparatus after receiving at least one first acknowledgement corresponding to the PPDU transmitted by the first apparatus in the TXOP (Claim 16 claims the same method steps).
Claims 2-3 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 (inclusive of claims 1-2 by dependency) of the Han Patent in view of Lv et al. (US 2019/0230703, Lv hereafter).
RE claim 2, the Han Patent claims the first apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive at least one frame through the transceiver (Claim 2, which is further included in claim 3, claims “ receiving at least one frame;”); identify at least one neighboring apparatus configured to support spatial reuse based on the at least one frame (Claim 2: “identifying at least one neighboring apparatus configured to support spatial reuse based on the at least one frame; and select the second apparatus from among the at least one neighboring apparatus (claim 3: ”selecting the second apparatus from among the at least one neighboring apparatus”).
The Han Patent fails to claim that the frame is a beacon frame.
However, Lv teaches use of a beacon frame in this manner (Paragraph 58 teaches AP controlled spatial reuse whereby an AP broadcasts a beacon frame which is comprised of spatial reuse parameters thus indicating it performs spatial reuse.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of the Han Patent with the teachings of Lv since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or 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)).
RE claim 3, the Han Patent in view of Lv claims the first apparatus of claim 2 as set forth above. Note that the Han Patent further claims wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: identify the third apparatus; and select the second apparatus based on the identified third apparatus and the at least one path loss (Claim 3: “wherein the selecting the second apparatus comprises: identifying the third apparatus; and selecting the second apparatus based on the identified third apparatus and the at least one path loss.”)
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the Han Patent in view of Lv and further in view of Itagaki et al. (US 2017/0374621, Itagaki hereafter).
RE claim 4, the Han Patent in view of Lv claims the first apparatus of claim 2 as set forth above. The Han Patent in view of Lv does not explicitly claim wherein the at least one path loss comprises at least one path loss between the first apparatus and the at least one neighboring apparatus, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: extract transmission power information from the at least one frame; measure a reception power of the at least one frame; and calculate the at least one path loss based on the transmission power information and the measured reception power.
However, Itagaki teaches wherein the at least one path loss comprises at least one path loss between the first apparatus and the at least one neighboring apparatus, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: extract transmission power information from the at least one frame (Paragraph 102-104, a beacon carries a field indicating its transmission power); measure a reception power of the at least one frame; and calculate the at least one path loss based on the transmission power information and the measured reception power (Paragraph 144 further teaching the calculation of propagation attenuation, interpretant to be equivalent to “path loss” based upon the transmission power indicated in the beacon and the received power of the beacon as measured by the apparatus receiving it.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of the Han Patent in view of Lv with the teachings of Itagaki since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or 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)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian et al. (US 2020/0106579, Cherian hereafter) in view of Haartsen (US 5,491,837).
RE claim 14, Cherian discloses a method for wireless communication at a first access point, the method comprising: determining at least one path loss, the at least one path loss comprising a path loss between a first station and the first access point, a path loss between a second station and a second access point, or both (Paragraphs 60 and 64, “The first AP may send a parameter to the second AP that can be used by the second AP (or a STA associated with the second AP) to determine whether to participate in the coordinated transmission. For example, the parameter may be related to a power level, channel quality, interference tolerance, or combination thereof, about the first WLAN. The first AP can calculate the parameter and provide it to the second AP. The second AP can use the parameter as well as information about the second WLAN (such as power level or estimated signal path loss) to determine whether using the resource assignment would cause too much interference to the first WLAN.”, and “the first AP may send a coordinated downlink (CO-DL) parameter to the second AP. The CO-DL parameter may be included in a MAP-Sch-Trigger message that is used to provide the resource assignments to neighboring APs. The neighboring APs (such as the second AP) may use the CO-DL parameter to determine whether to utilize the coordinated transmission. In some implementations, the first AP also may cause its intended downlink STAs (such as the first STA) to transmit a test communication that can be used by the first AP and the neighboring APs to determine signal strength or path loss. The neighboring APs may measure a signal strength of the test communication from the first STA. The neighboring AP also may estimate an amount of transmit power for it to communicate an OBSS downlink communication to the OBSS STA as part of the coordinated transmission. The neighboring AP may participate in the coordinated transmission after a determination that the estimated transmit power for the OBSS downlink communication is below a limit. The limit may be determined using the signal strength of the test communication from the first STA and the CO-DL parameter.”); identifying a first transmission power for transmitting a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to the first station during a shared transmit opportunity (TXOP) (Paragraph 60 and 64); determining a transmission power limit for transmission of a second PPDU from the second access point to the second station based at least in part on the first transmission power and the shared TXOP (Paragraph 60 and 64); transmitting an indication of the transmission power limit to the second access point; and transmitting the first PPDU with the first transmission power to the first station based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the transmission power limit to the second access point (Paragraph 60 and 64).
Cherian does not explicitly disclose identifying a first transmission power for transmitting a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to the first station during a shared transmit opportunity (TXOP) based at least in part on the determined at least one path loss.
However, Haartsen teaches identifying a first transmission power for transmitting a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to the first station during a shared transmit opportunity (TXOP) based at least in part on the determined at least one path loss (Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method Cherian with the teachings of Haartsen since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or 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)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights