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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,720, hereafter Patent’720. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because (see below).
Regarding claim 1 of instant application, Patent’720 discloses
A station (STA) comprising: (see claim 1 line 1)
a receiver configured to receive, from an access point (AP), a physical layer convergence procedure (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU) in one of an upper frequency band or a lower frequency band, the PPDU comprising a trigger frame, wherein the trigger frame includes information indicating an allocation of a plurality of random access (RA) resource units (RA-RUs), wherein each of the RA-RUs are associated with one of the upper frequency band or the lower frequency band; (see claim 1 lines 2-8)
a processor configured to select one of the plurality of allocated RA-RUs; and (see claim 1 lines 9-13)
a transmitter configured to transmit, to the AP, a message using the selected RA-RU (see claim 1 lines 14-15)
Regarding claim 2 of instant application, claim 1 of Patent’720 discloses similar limitation (see lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 3 of instant application, claim 1 of Patent’720 discloses similar limitation (see lines 11-13)
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.
Claims 1, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosh et al (USPN 20170257887) in view of Choi et al (USPN 20180092032).
Regarding claim 1, Ghosh discloses
a station (STA) comprising: (high efficiency (HE) station comprising [0021, 0097-0100], FIG. 13
a receiver configured to receive, from an access point (AP), a protocol data unit (PPDU) (transceiver circuitry for receiving PLCP PPDU wirelessly transmitted from a master station [0023, 0127, 0033, 0037], FIGs. 2, 8, 9
the PPDU comprising a trigger frame, wherein the trigger frame includes information indicating an allocation of a plurality of random access (RA) resource units (RU) (PLCP PPDU comprising trigger frame, FIG. 2 #210.1 #210.2, comprising resource allocation, e.g. FIG. 2 #214.1 #214.2, for random access [0026, 0037, 0051]
wherein each of the RA-Rus are associated with one of the upper frequency band or the lower frequency band (RA-RUs are associated with lower frequency band, e.g. FIG. 5 #504 20 MHZ [0045]
a processor configured to select one of the plurality of allocated RA-RUs; and (processor, FIG. 13 #1302, operable to select a RU from multiple RUs for random access [0046-0048], Abstract
a transmitter configured to transmit, to the AP, a message using the selected RA-RU (transceiver circuitry operable to transmit to the master station using the selected RU [0046-0048], Abstract.
Ghosh does not expressly disclose a physical layer convergence procedure (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU); the PLCP PPDU received in one of an upper frequency band or a lower frequency band
Choi discloses a physical layer convergence procedure (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU) (PLCP PPDU format being received over the air by STA [0083-0086, 0180-0185], Tables 1, 2, FIG. 29.
the PLCP PPDU received in one of an upper frequency band or a lower frequency band PPDU/beacon frame carrying triggered frame is received in either 2.4 GHz, lower frequency band, or 5 GHz, upper frequency band [0083, 0003, 0125]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “a physical layer convergence procedure (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU); the PLCP PPDU received in one of an upper frequency band or a lower frequency band” as taught by Choi into Ghosh’s system with the motivation to perform resource allocation, e.g. FIG. 2 #214.1 #214.2, for random access (Ghosh, paragraph [0026, 0037, 0051]).
Claim 8 is rejected on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosh in view of Choi as applied to claims 1, 8, and in view of Pascal et al (GB2584885A).
Regarding claims 2, 9, Gosh discloses RA-RUs are associated with lower frequency band, e.g. FIG. 5 #504 20 MHZ [0045].
Combined system of Gosh and Choi does not expressly disclose “wherein the trigger frame includes an indication of a target received signal strength indicator (TRSSI) associated with the upper frequency band or the lower frequency band”
Pascal discloses trigger frame comprising a TRSSI and per RU user info/RA-RU allocation, TRSSI associated with specific RU (pages 10-12, FIGs. 2a-3a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the trigger frame includes an indication of a target received signal strength indicator (TRSSI) associated with the upper frequency band or the lower frequency band” as taught by Pascal into combined system of Ghosh and Choi with the motivation to perform resource allocation as well as indicating TRSSI for a specific RA-RU with the allocation being received in a particular band (Pascal, pages 10-12, FIGs. 2a-3a).
Claims 3, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosh in view of Choi as applied to claims 1, 8, and in view of Lou et al (USPN 20180332540).
Regarding claims 3, 10, combined system of Gosh and Choi does not expressly disclose “wherein the processor is configured to calculate an expected received signal strength indicator (ERSSI) at the AP”.
Lou discloses STA processes trigger frame comprising power alignment index comprising expected received power at AP and calculates transmission parameters to achieve this expected received power [0102, 0115, 0116, 0176], FIGs. 6, 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the processor is configured to calculate an expected received signal strength indicator (ERSSI) at the AP” as taught by Lou into combined system of Ghosh and Choi with the motivation to make sure UL transmissions from STA can be received by AP at an appropriate transmission at STA (Lou, [0102, 0116, 0176], FIGs. 6, 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang (USPN 20170373736) FIG. 3A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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 N Moore can be reached at (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 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469