DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 9 and 18 are amended.
Claim(s) 21-25 are canceled.
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 .
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P.201.14(c), acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority based on application(s) PCT/US2022/022867 submitted on March 31st, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on August 21st, 2024; November 13th, 2024 and July 16th, 2026 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the specification of the disclosure filed August 21st, 2024 is considered.
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a legal phraseology “comprising …” in line 2. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a machine claim, “A device …”, and the list of devices (i.e. a processing circuitry, storage) in the preamble. The body of the claim recites the action steps: “generate … divide … insert … and cause …” performed by the device.
For clarity and placing the claim into a proper machine claim, it is suggested to replace “A device …” with “A device comprising:” so that the aforementioned list of devices, comprised by the device, which are performing these actions/steps (see MPEP 2106.03, section I1 ; MPEP 2173.05(p), section II2).
Claim(s) 2-9 are also being objected for being dependent on an objected base claim as set forth above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CHUN et al. (US 2017/0302417 A1) hereinafter “Chun” in view of Eitan et al. (US 2017/0207905 A1) hereinafter “Eitan”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19,
Chun discloses a device [see fig(s). 45 and 46, pg. 38, ¶748 lines 1-4, an access point (AP)], the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage [see fig(s). 45 and 46, pg. 38, ¶748 lines 1-4, include a memory “4612”, a processor “4611” and an RF unit “4613”], the processing circuitry configured to [see fig(s). 45 and 46, pg. 38, ¶748 lines 1-4, the processor “4611” implemented to]:
generate a frame comprising a preamble and a data payload [see fig. 45: Step “4501”, pg. 38, ¶740 lines 1-4, the AP generates DL MU PPDU in which distributed resource allocation information is included]; and
cause to send the frame to a first station device [see fig. 45: Step “4501”, pg. 38, ¶741 lines 1-8, the AP transmits the generated DL MU PPDU to at least one STA to which a frequency resource is allocated].
Although Chun discloses generating a frame comprising a preamble and a data payload, Chun does not explicitly teach “dividing the data payload into a plurality of data portions”; and “inserting a time domain gap between each of the plurality of data portions to allow for preemption during transmission of the frame”.
However Eitan discloses generating [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5; ¶83 lines 1-7; ¶84 lines 1-4, including], by one or more processors [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5; ¶83 lines 1-7; ¶84 lines 1-4, by an initiator or access point (AP)], a frame comprising a preamble and a data payload [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5; ¶83 lines 1-7; ¶84 lines 1-4, a frame “410” including a preamble “420” and a plurality of data portions “425-1” to “425-3” for transmitting data];
dividing the data payload into a plurality of data portions [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5; ¶83 lines 1-7; ¶84 lines 1-4, each data portion includes a portion of the data payload of the frame “410”];
inserting a time domain gap between each of the plurality of data portions to allow for preemption during transmission of the frame [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶85 lines 1-5, the data portions “425-1” to “425-3” are separated by small gaps “415-1” to “415-3”; within each gap “415-1” to “415-3”, the initiator or access point (AP) receives a Feedback (FB) message “430-1” to “430-3” from a responder (access terminal (AT) or STA) providing the initiator with feedback of data reception by the responder]; and
causing to send the frame to a first station device [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5, the initiator or access point (AP) transmits a long PPDU or frame “410” with small gaps “415-1” to “415-3” in the transmission for receiving feedback from the responder (access terminal (AT) or STA)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “dividing the data payload into a plurality of data portions”; and “inserting a time domain gap between each of the plurality of data portions to allow for preemption during transmission of the frame” as taught by Eitan in the system of Chun for improving medium efficiency at high PHY rates and/or to be used to significantly reduce memory requirements for the payload by using “On the Fly Feedback” [see Eitan, pg. 7, ¶76 lines 1-4].
Regarding Claims 2 and 20,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the device of claim 1.
Chun further discloses wherein the time domain gap is comprised of at least one of a delimiter or a time pause [see pg. 20, ¶385 lines 1-6, the A-MPDU subframe includes an MPDU delimiter, and an MPDU is optionally included after the MPDU delimiter].
Regarding Claim 3,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the device of claim 2.
Chun further discloses wherein the delimiter is a long training field (LTF) field or a signaling (SIG) field [see pg. 21, ¶394 lines 1-8, the MU PPDU is configured to include L-TFs (i.e., an L-STF and an L-LTF), an L-SIG field … etc.].
Regarding Claim 4,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the device of claim 1.
Chun further discloses wherein the time domain gap is different from the data payload [see pg. 29, ¶595 lines 1-5, the Adjustment field contains information for adjusting differences in timing/frequency/power. Here, adjustment information refers to information for correcting gaps in timing/frequency/power which are generated from signals the AP receives from the STAs].
Regarding Claim 5,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the device of claim 1.
Chun further discloses wherein the frame is a physical layer (PHY) convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) or an aggregated PPDU (A-PPDU) [see pg. 6, ¶107 lines 1-11, the A-MPDU is transmitted through a wireless medium within a single PPDU].
Regarding Claim 6,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the device of claim 1.
Chun further discloses wherein during the time domain gap [see pg. 14, ¶246 lines 1-4, for exchanging a request to send (RTS) frame and a clear to send (CTS) frame], receive a preemption request from a second station device [see pg. 14, ¶246 lines 1-4, an AP and/or an STA performs a procedure in order to provide notification that they will access a medium].
Regarding Claim 7,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the device of claim 1.
Chun further discloses wherein a last MAC protocol data unit (MPDU) of a first data portion of the data payload is fragmented into two fragments [see pg. 11, ¶209 lines 1-5, the More Fragments subfield indicates whether there is a fragment to be sent subsequent to the MAC frame], wherein a first fragment is included in a first data portion of the plurality of data portions and a second fragment is included in a second data portion of the plurality of data portions [see pg. 11, ¶209 lines 1-5, if there is another fragment of the current MSDU or MMPDU, the More Fragments subfield is set to ‘1’; otherwise, it is set to ‘0’].
Regarding Claim 8,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the device of claim 1.
Chun further discloses wherein the plurality of data portions correspond to a MAC frame that is comprised of individual MAC protocol data units (MPDUs) separated by a MAC delimiter [see pg. 21, ¶402 lines 1-6, in the null subframe, the EOF field of the MPDU delimiter is set to “1”. Accordingly, when the EOF field set to “1” is detected in the MAC layer of an STA on the receiving side, the reception of the physical layer is stopped].
Regarding Claim 9,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the device of claim 8.
Chun further discloses wherein a first portion of the MAC frame comprise a padding to align a first portion of the MAC frame to a first data portion of the frame [see pg. 10, ¶166 lines 1-9, additional padding is required in the physical layer because an MAC protocol data unit (MPDU) and/or an aggregate MAC PDU (A-MPDU) are set based on the bytes (or octets) of the MAC layer].
Regarding Claim 10,
Chun discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations [see fig(s). 45 and 46, pg. 38, ¶748 lines 1-4, a memory “4612” storing instructions for a processor “4611” of an access point (AP) implemented to execute a method] comprising:
generate a frame comprising a preamble and a data payload [see fig. 45: Step “4501”, pg. 38, ¶740 lines 1-4, the AP generates DL MU PPDU in which distributed resource allocation information is included]; and
cause to send the frame to a first station device [see fig. 45: Step “4501”, pg. 38, ¶741 lines 1-8, the AP transmits the generated DL MU PPDU to at least one STA to which a frequency resource is allocated].
Although Chun discloses generating a frame comprising a preamble and a data payload, Chun does not explicitly teach “dividing the data payload into a plurality of data portions”; and “inserting a time domain gap between each of the plurality of data portions to allow for preemption during transmission of the frame”.
However Eitan discloses generating [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5; ¶83 lines 1-7; ¶84 lines 1-4, including], by one or more processors [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5; ¶83 lines 1-7; ¶84 lines 1-4, by an initiator or access point (AP)], a frame comprising a preamble and a data payload [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5; ¶83 lines 1-7; ¶84 lines 1-4, a frame “410” including a preamble “420” and a plurality of data portions “425-1” to “425-3” for transmitting data];
dividing the data payload into a plurality of data portions [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5; ¶83 lines 1-7; ¶84 lines 1-4, each data portion includes a portion of the data payload of the frame “410”];
inserting a time domain gap between each of the plurality of data portions to allow for preemption during transmission of the frame [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶85 lines 1-5, the data portions “425-1” to “425-3” are separated by small gaps “415-1” to “415-3”; within each gap “415-1” to “415-3”, the initiator or access point (AP) receives a Feedback (FB) message “430-1” to “430-3” from a responder (access terminal (AT) or STA) providing the initiator with feedback of data reception by the responder]; and
causing to send the frame to a first station device [see fig. 4, pg. 7, ¶82 lines 1-5, the initiator or access point (AP) transmits a long PPDU or frame “410” with small gaps “415-1” to “415-3” in the transmission for receiving feedback from the responder (access terminal (AT) or STA)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “dividing the data payload into a plurality of data portions”; and “inserting a time domain gap between each of the plurality of data portions to allow for preemption during transmission of the frame” as taught by Eitan in the system of Chun for improving medium efficiency at high PHY rates and/or to be used to significantly reduce memory requirements for the payload by using “On the Fly Feedback” [see Eitan, pg. 7, ¶76 lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 11,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10.
Chun further discloses wherein the time domain gap is comprised of at least one of a delimiter or a time pause [see pg. 20, ¶385 lines 1-6, the A-MPDU subframe includes an MPDU delimiter, and an MPDU is optionally included after the MPDU delimiter].
Regarding Claim 12,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11.
Chun further discloses wherein the delimiter is a long training field (LTF) field or a signaling (SIG) field [see pg. 21, ¶394 lines 1-8, the MU PPDU is configured to include L-TFs (i.e., an L-STF and an L-LTF), an L-SIG field … etc.].
Regarding Claim 13,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10.
Chun further discloses wherein the time domain gap is different from the data payload [see pg. 29, ¶595 lines 1-5, the Adjustment field contains information for adjusting differences in timing/frequency/power. Here, adjustment information refers to information for correcting gaps in timing/frequency/power which are generated from signals the AP receives from the STAs].
Regarding Claim 14,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10.
Chun further discloses wherein the frame is a physical layer (PHY) convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) or an aggregated PPDU (A-PPDU) [see pg. 6, ¶107 lines 1-11, the A-MPDU is transmitted through a wireless medium within a single PPDU].
Regarding Claim 15,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10.
Chun further discloses wherein during the time domain gap [see pg. 14, ¶246 lines 1-4, for exchanging a request to send (RTS) frame and a clear to send (CTS) frame], receive a preemption request from a second station device [see pg. 14, ¶246 lines 1-4, an AP and/or an STA performs a procedure in order to provide notification that they will access a medium].
Regarding Claim 16,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10.
Chun further discloses wherein a last MAC protocol data unit (MPDU) of a first data portion of the data payload is fragmented into two fragments [see pg. 11, ¶209 lines 1-5, the More Fragments subfield indicates whether there is a fragment to be sent subsequent to the MAC frame], wherein a first fragment is included in a first data portion of the plurality of data portions and a second fragment is included in a second data portion of the plurality of data portions [see pg. 11, ¶209 lines 1-5, if there is another fragment of the current MSDU or MMPDU, the More Fragments subfield is set to ‘1’; otherwise, it is set to ‘0’].
Regarding Claim 17,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10.
Chun further discloses wherein the plurality of data portions correspond to a MAC frame that is comprised of individual MAC protocol data units (MPDUs) separated by a MAC delimiter [see pg. 21, ¶402 lines 1-6, in the null subframe, the EOF field of the MPDU delimiter is set to “1”. Accordingly, when the EOF field set to “1” is detected in the MAC layer of an STA on the receiving side, the reception of the physical layer is stopped].
Regarding Claim 18,
The combined system of Chun and Eitan discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17.
Chun further discloses wherein a first portion of the MAC frame comprise a padding to align a first portion of the MAC frame to a first data portion of the frame [see pg. 10, ¶166 lines 1-9, additional padding is required in the physical layer because an MAC protocol data unit (MPDU) and/or an aggregate MAC PDU (A-MPDU) are set based on the bytes (or octets) of the MAC layer].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication: CHOI et al. (US 2022/0200770 A1); see fig. 31, pg. 30, ¶296.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSHIL P SAMPAT whose telephone number is (469) 295-9141. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8 AM - 5 PM).
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.
/RUSHIL P. SAMPAT/Primary Examiner- TC 2400, Art Unit 2469
1 A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)).
2 IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Prosecution Insights