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 statements (IDSs) were submitted on 03/11/2026 and 07/20/2026. 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 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.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the control field includes a first field indicating a format of the individual TWT parameter set field supporting a bandwidth of 320 MHz or more,” (Emphasis added.) (lines 6-7). It is unclear whether “supporting a bandwidth of 320 MHz or more” is connected to “a first field” or “a format of the individual TWT parameter set field”. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected at least based on a similar rational applied to claim 1. For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim 1, as set forth above.
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 1-5, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US Publication No. 2019/0246354 A1)1 in view of Gan et al (EP 3968731 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses, a method of performing subchannel selective transmission (SST) operation by a first station (STA) in a wireless LAN system [¶¶0002, 0074, 0109 and 0160-0168, a method of performing subchannel selective transmission (SST) operation by TWT requesting STA 504 in a wireless LAN system; further see ¶0109, the HE SST STA 504 may be arranged to operate in accordance with an HE WLAN protocol], the method comprising:
receiving, from a second STA, a target wake time (TWT) element [¶0160-0163, the TWT requesting STA receives, from TWP responding STA, TWT element 1100 (see FIG. 11)] including a control field and an individual TWT parameter set field [¶0170-0171 with reference to ¶0160-0163, the TWT element 1100 (see FIG. 11) including control field (see, “third block” of the TWT element) and other parameters such as TWT control field, etc. in the TWT element 1100]; and
performing the SST operation based on the TWT element [¶¶0002, 0074, 0109 and 0160-0168, the TWT requesting STA uses/performs a temporary channel indicated by the TWT channel field of the TWT element 1100; see ¶0160, when transmitted by a TWT responding STA 504 that is either an S1G STA 504 or an HE STA 504 with dot11HETemporaryPrimaryChannelImplemented equal to true, the TWT Channel field contains a bitmap indicating which channel the TWT requesting STA 504 is allowed to use as a temporary channel during the TWT SP],
wherein . . . a format of the individual TWT parameter set field supporting a bandwidth of 320 MHz or more [¶0171 with reference to ¶0160-0163, the TWT channel field/individual TWT parameter set field supports a bandwidth 320 MHz or more; further see “the bitmap of the TWT Channel field is kept as a 8-bit bitmap, but that each bit is now representing a 40 MHz channel, instead of a single 20 MHz channel”, which means that the TWP chancel field supports 8 bits x 40 MHz channel (320 MHz)], and
wherein the TWT element includes a second field related to a channel width resolution for the SST operation [¶0171 with reference to ¶0160-0163, the TWP element includes reserved bits of the control field which is related to the bandwidth represented by one bit of the bitmap of the TWT control field; further see, “the way to understand how to interpret the TWT Channel bitmap (20 MHz channel per bit or 40 MHz channel per bit) (i.e., channel width resolution) may be defined as one or more of the following . . . . In an explicit technique, a field is defined (new or repurposed) to indicate the bandwidth represented by one bit of the bitmap of the TWT Channel field. This field can be in the HE or NBT operation element, or in a new element broadcasted by the AP 502 in beacons and probe and (re)association responses, or in the TWT element itself, for instance one of the reserved bits in the Control field in the TWT element. This can be a one-bit or 2-bit field: set to 0 for 20 MHz, set to 1 for 40 MHz. Additional extension field can also be added to the TWT element”].
Although Huang discloses, “receiving, from a second STA, a target wake time (TWT) element including a control field and an individual TWT parameter set field; and wherein . . . a format of the individual TWT parameter set field supporting a bandwidth of 320 MHz or more” as set forth above, Huang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the control field includes a first field indicating a format of the individual TWT parameter set field.
However, Gan discloses, the control field includes a first field indicating a format of the individual TWT parameter set field [FIG. 18; its related descriptions; ¶0106, the control field includes fields such as a negotiation type field. When the negotiation type indicates the single-user TWT type, an information field of a single-user TWT parameter (i.e., individual TWP parameter set field) includes a request type, target wake time, TWT group allocation, minimum TWT wake duration, TWT wake interval mantissa, a TWT channel, NDP (Null data packet, null data packet) paging, and the like].
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 Huang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Gan 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 Gan into the system of Huang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., allowing the explicit indication of the format of the individual TWT parameter set field and facilitating reliable interpretation of the transmitted TWT information, 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 2, Huang in view of Gan discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Huang discloses, wherein: the first field is set to at least one of a seventh bit (B6) or a eighth bit (B7) of the control field [¶0170-0171 with reference to ¶0160-0163, the TWT element 1100 (see FIG. 11) including control field (see, “third block” of the TWT element) including 1 octet (8 bits); note that the first field which is a part of the control field is set at least one of the eighth bit of the control field].
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Gan discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Huang discloses, wherein: the second field is set to at least one of a seventh bit (B6) or an eight bit (B7) of the control field, or is included in the individual TWT parameter set field [¶0171 with reference to ¶0160-0163, the TWP element includes reserved bits of the control field which is related to the bandwidth represented by one bit of the bitmap of the TWT control field; note that the second field which is a part of the control field is set at least one of the eighth bit of the control field].
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Gan discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Huang discloses,, wherein: the channel width resolution is indicated by the second field as at least one of 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, or 160 MHz [¶0170-0171, note that each bit representing 20 MHz, 40 MHz, or 80 MHz].
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Gan discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Huang discloses, wherein: the individual TWT channel parameter set field includes a TWT channel field [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0170-0171, the TWT element 1100 includes the TWT channel field], and the TWT channel field includes a 16-bit or 32-bit bitmap indicating a channel for the SST operation [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0170, This way the TWT channel field is have a 16-bit bitmap to represent the 16 20 MHz].
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses, a first station (STA) performing a subchannel selective transmission (SST) operation in a wireless LAN system [¶¶0002, 0074, 0109 and 0160-0168, TWT STA 504 performing subchannel selective transmission (SST) operation in a wireless LAN system], the first STA comprising:
at least one transceiver [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0090-0091, transceiver 702; note that every station has at least one transceiver]; and
at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0090-0091, processing circuitry 400; note that every station has at least one processor].
Since claim 10 recites similar features to claim 1 except for the above-mentioned features, claim 10 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, a second station (STA) performing subchannel selective transmission (SST) operation in a wireless LAN system [¶¶0002, 0074, 0109 and 0160-0168, TWT responding STA 504 performing SST operation in a wireless LAN system], the second STA comprising:
at least one transceiver [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0090-0091, transceiver 702; note that every station has at least one transceiver]; and
at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0090-0091, processing circuitry 400; note that every station has at least one processor].
Since claim 12 is merely different from claim 1 or claim 10 in that it recites claimed
features from the perspective of a second station, but recites similar features to claim 1 or claim 10 without further additional features, claim 12 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1 or claim 10.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US Publication No. 2019/0246354 A1) in view of Gan et al (EP 3968731 B1) and further in view of Chu et al (US Publication No. 2021/0266890 A1)2.
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Gan discloses, the method of claim 5 as set forth above.
Although Huang discloses, the TWT channel field includes a bitmap indicating a channel for the SST operation in a bandwidth [¶0160, when transmitted by a TWT responding STA 504 that is either an S1G STA 504 or an HE STA 504 with dot11 HE Temporary PrimaryChannel Implemented equal to true, the TWT Channel field contains a bitmap indicating which channel the TWT requesting STA 504 is allowed to use as a temporary channel during the TWT SP], Huang in view of Gan does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chu discloses, wherein: based on a specific channel being punctured in an overall bandwidth, the TWT channel field includes a bitmap indicating a channel . . . excluding the specific channel from the overall bandwidth [¶0064, because the sixth 20 MHz channel 302-6 may be a dynamically punctured 20 MHz channel, STA1 may miss and/or not receive RUs for STA1 that are carried in the PPDUs when the sixth 20 MHz channel 302-6 is dynamically punctured in the PPDUs; further see ¶0066, the channel unit bitmap may be a per-20 MHz bitmap, such that each bit in the per-20 MHz bitmap indicates whether a related 20 MHz channel is punctured statically; note that puncturing of a subchannel is considered as excluding of the subchannel from being used].
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 Huang in view of Gan with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Chu 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 Chu into the system of Huang in view of Gan would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., improving resource allocation and transmission efficiency, 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 7, Huang in view of Gan discloses, the method of claim 5 as set forth above.
Although Huang discloses, . . . a first bandwidth being indicated by a size of the channel width resolution by the second field [¶0171, 160 MHz (or 320 MHz) being indicated by a size of 20 MHz channel (channel width resolution) by the bits in the TWT element], Huang in view of Gan does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chu discloses, wherein: based on a first bandwidth . . . and a second bandwidth being punctured within the first bandwidth, the SST operation is performed in a remaining bandwidth excluding the second bandwidth among the first bandwidth [¶0064, because the sixth 20 MHz channel 302-6 may be a dynamically punctured 20 MHz channel, STA1 may miss and/or not receive RUs for STA1 that are carried in the PPDUs when the sixth 20 MHz channel 302-6 is dynamically punctured in the PPDUs; further see ¶0066, the channel unit bitmap may be a per-20 MHz bitmap, such that each bit in the per-20 MHz bitmap indicates whether a related 20 MHz channel is punctured statically; note that based on the channels 302-1 through 302-8 (i.e., first bandwidth)and the punctured 20 MHz channel 302-6 (i.e., second bandwidth) being punctured within the channels 302-1 through 302-8, transmission is performed in a remaining bandwidth excluding the punctured channel 302-6 among the channels 302-1 through 302-8].
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 Chu in the system of Huang in view of Gan for similar rationales set forth above in claim 6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US Publication No. 2019/0246354 A1) in view of Gan et al (EP 3968731 B1) and further in view of Kwon et al (US Publication No. 2021/0336752 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Gan discloses, the method of claim 5 as set forth above.
Huang in view of Gan does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kwon discloses, a specific channel being punctured from an overall bandwidth is indicated by a disabled subchannel bitmap or a bitmap related to a disabling of a subchannel [¶0074, when channel puncturing is present within the corresponding bandwidth, then a “Disallowed Subchannel bitmap” may be used to indicate a punctured channel within the corresponding bandwidth (e.g., channel puncturing information). As an example, the Disallowed Subchannel bitmap may be extended from 160 MHz (8-bits) to 320 MHz (16-bits) in the EHT communication protocol].
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 Huang in view of Gan with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kwon 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 Kwon into the system of Huang in view of Gan would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., improving resource allocation and transmission efficiency, 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)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lou et al (US Publication No. 2024/0106585 A1) [¶0200]
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
1 Huang was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
2 Chu was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
Prosecution Insights