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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not moot due to the fact that all independent claims have amended by adding significant claim limitations, to which the new ground rejection have been made as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a new claim limitation “wherein NSTR between any two antenna ports among the plurality of antenna ports indicates that, within the one link, reception through one of the two antenna ports is restricted while transmission is performed through the other of the two antenna ports”. There is insufficient support for this claim limitation in the specification.
Independent claims 8 and 9 are rejected because each has the same problem as that of claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected because each depends because each depends on the corresponding independent claim.
Furthermore, Dependent claims 3 and 11 are rejected because that each recites new limitations:
“wherein STR between any two antenna ports among the plurality of antenna ports indicates that, within the one link, reception through one of the two antenna ports is allowed while transmission is performed through the other of the two antenna ports, and
wherein based on the first bitmap including the first bit set to 0, the second bit set to 0, and the third bit set to 1 and the at least one antenna port being the first antenna port,
reception through one of the first antenna port and the second antenna port is allowed while transmission is performed through the other of the first antenna port and the second antenna port,
reception through one of the first antenna port and the third antenna port is allowed while transmission is performed through the other of the first antenna port and the third antenna port, and
reception through one of the first antenna port and the fourth antenna port is restricted while transmission is performed through the other of the first antenna port and the fourth antenna port.”.
There is insufficient support for these claim limitations in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (US 20210014911 A1) in view of Naribole (US 20210076419 A1).
For claim 1, Patil discloses a method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system (FIG. 15 shows a WLAN system), the method comprising:
receiving, by a receiving station (STA), a beacon frame including a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) element from a transmitting STA (FIGs. 5-26 and the associated text, such as FIG. 15 wherein STA 1504 receiving Frame from AP 1502; [0190] “At block 1402, the STA MLD receives a frame from a first AP of the AP MLD, the frame including an advertising information element, a first portion, and a second portion. … the frame may be one of a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, or a reassociation response frame.” and FIG. 25, MLA 2520 as DAS in view of [0261] “the link IDs carried in the neighbor AP information fields are the same as the link IDs carried in respective per-link profile subelements of the MLA element 2520, for example, so that information carried in the neighbor AP information fields may be mapped to information carried in the per-link profile subelements of the MLA element. …”, [0135] “… The Link Attribute (LA) Element may carry discovery information for the first communication link, and the Multiple Link Attribute (MLA) Element may carry discovery information for the one or more secondary communication links. The discovery information may include an operating class, a wireless channel, a BSSID, and other suitable information for a respective communication link. …” and [0102] “… The RF transmitters and receivers may in turn be coupled to one or more antennas. For example, in some implementations, the wireless communication device 500 can include, or be coupled with, multiple transmit antennas (each with a corresponding transmit chain) and multiple receive antennas (each with a corresponding receive chain). …”);
checking, by the receiving STA, control information on whether Simultaneous Transmit and Receive (STR) or non-STR (NSTR) is supported between a plurality of antenna ports based on the DAS element (FIGs. 5-26 and the associated text, such as FIG. 18, 1830 “STR Indicator“ in view of “[0196] In some implementations, the frame may also include an indication of whether the AP MLD supports simultaneous transmit-and-receive (STR) operations across multiple links of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links. In some instances, the frame may also include an indication of whether the AP MLD is an STR device or a non-STR device.”); and
receiving a signal from the transmitting STA or transmitting a signal to the transmitting STA, by the receiving STA, through at least one antenna port among the plurality of antenna ports in one link based on the control information (FIGs. 5-26 and the associated text, such as [0102] “… The RF transmitters and receivers may in turn be coupled to one or more antennas. For example, in some implementations, the wireless communication device 500 can include, or be coupled with, multiple transmit antennas (each with a corresponding transmit chain) and multiple receive antennas (each with a corresponding receive chain). …”),
wherein the transmitting STA operates in a system in which a plurality of antenna ports are distributed (FIGs. 5-26 and the associated text, such as FIG. 6B in view of [0106] “… The STA 604 also includes one or more antennas 625 coupled with the wireless communication device 615 to transmit and receive wireless communications. …”),
wherein the first antenna port specific field includes information on an index of the first antenna port and a first bitmap (FIGs. 5-26 and the associated text, such as [0256] “… the non-Tx BSSID profile 2310 may also include a non-Tx BSSID capabilities element, an SSID and BSSID-index element, and …” and [0215] “FIG. 16B shows another example frame 1610 usable for communications between wireless communication devices. … a bitmap 1612 that may indicate a presence or absence of each of the one or more common attributes…”), and
Patil does not specifically state wherein based on the plurality of antenna ports including first to fourth antenna ports, the DAS element includes a first antenna port specific field for the first antenna port, a second antenna port specific field for the second antenna port, a third antenna port specific field for the third antenna port, and a fourth antenna port specific field for the fourth antenna port, wherein the first bitmap includes a first bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the first and second antenna ports, a second bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the first and third antenna ports, and a third bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the first and fourth antenna ports.
Naribole, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses: that the transceiver may include a plurality of antenna ports as the DAS elements (“[0079] … the antenna module 1097 may include one or more antennas, and, therefrom, at least one antenna appropriate for a communication scheme used in the communication network, such as the first network 1098 or the second network 1099, may be selected, …” in view of MPEP 2143(F) in that selecting 4 antenna ports is considered as a design choice for the DAS/antenna module 1097, which would be obvious to OOSA according to MPEP 2143(F). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Narbole above to the DAS by Patil to yield a predictable result of facilitating network communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Patil and Naribole for the benefit of facilitating network communication ([0079] of Naribole).
Patil in view of Naribole does not state that the following new limitation: wherein NSTR between any two antenna ports among the plurality of antenna ports indicates that, within the one link, reception through one of the two antenna ports is restricted while transmission is performed through the other of the two antenna ports.
However, Patil teaches each port of a plurality of antenna ports is independent to other ports (“[0155] In some implementations, the Independent MLA Bitmap subelement 1063 may be a bitmap that indicates a particular (second) link with which the first communication link may perform independent ML Association. …”). It would have been obvious design choice to OOSA to select one of 2 ports toto perform reception and another to performs transmission because of port independent accord to MPEP 2143(F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Patil and Naribole for the benefit of independently performing reception and transmission ([0155] of Patil).
Independent claim 8 is rejected because it is acclaim of generic STA specified in the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter as claim 1.
Independent claim 9 is rejected because it is a claim of method that has the same the same subject matter as claim 1 (with corresponding receiving and transmitting at each step).
As to claims 2 and 10, Patil in view of Naribole discloses claims 1 and 9, and does not specifically disclose:
wherein based on the first bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the first and second antenna ports,
wherein based on the first bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the first and second antenna ports,
wherein based on the second bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the first and third antenna ports,
wherein based on the second bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the first and third antenna ports,
wherein based on the third bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the first and fourth antenna ports, and
wherein based on the third bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the first and fourth antenna ports.
However, Patil teaches using a bitmap to represent certain information elements ([0215], [0153], [0179]); assigning a specific bit in the bitmap to indicate a specific feature (such as assigning the first bit for NSTR/STR feature between the first and the second antenna ports, and etc.) is considered as a design choice and would have been obvious to OOSA according to MPEP 2143(F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application that the cited claim limitations in the claims do not make the claims patentable in view of Patil and Naribole.
As to claims 3 and 11, Patil in view of Naribole discloses claims 2 and 10, and does not specifically disclose:
wherein STR between any two antenna ports among the plurality of antenna ports indicates that, within the one link, reception through one of the two antenna ports is allowed while transmission is performed through the other of the two antenna ports, and
wherein based on the first bitmap including the first bit set to 0, the second bit set to 0, and the third bit set to 1 and the at least one antenna port being the first antenna port,
reception through one of the first antenna port and the second antenna port is allowed while transmission is performed through the other of the first antenna port and the second antenna port,
reception through one of the first antenna port and the third antenna port is allowed while transmission is performed through the other of the first antenna port and the third antenna port, and
reception through one of the first antenna port and the fourth antenna port is restricted while transmission is performed through the other of the first antenna port and the fourth antenna port ().
However, Patil teaches each port of a plurality of antenna ports is independent to other ports (“[0155] In some implementations, the Independent MLA Bitmap subelement 1063 may be a bitmap that indicates a particular (second) link with which the first communication link may perform independent ML Association. …”). and using a bitmap to represent certain information elements ([0153]). selecting one of 2 ports toto perform reception and another to performs transmission, and assigning the bitmap a specific value (such as “001”) and using it to indicate a specific feature (such as assigning the first bit for NSTR/STR feature between the first and second antenna ports) is considered as a design choice and would have been obvious to OOSA according to MPEP 2143(F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application for Patil in view of Naribole to use a bitmap to independently express a plurality of port and assign each port to perform desired function such as reception and transmission ([0153]-[0155] of Patil).
As to claims 4 and 12, Patil in view of Naribole discloses claims 1 and 9, and does not specifically disclose:
wherein the second antenna port specific field includes information on an index of the second antenna port and a second bitmap,
wherein the second bitmap includes a fourth bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the second and first antenna ports, a fifth bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the second and third antenna ports, and a sixth bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the second and fourth antenna ports, and
wherein based on the fourth bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the second and first antenna ports,
wherein based on the fourth bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the second and first antenna ports,
wherein based on the fifth bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the second and third antenna ports,
wherein based on the fifth bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the second and third antenna ports,
wherein based on the sixth bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the second and fourth antenna ports,
wherein based on the sixth bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the second and fourth antenna ports.
However, Patil teaches using a bitmap to represent certain information elements ([0215], [0153], [0179]); assigning a second bitmap for the second antenna port which provides information on an index of the second antenna port with the order of the bitmap providing information on an index and each bit in the bitmap indicating a specific feature (such as assigning the fourth bit for NSTR/STR feature between the second and the first antenna ports, and etc.) is considered as a design choice and would have been obvious to OOSA according to MPEP 2143(F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application that the cited claim limitations in the claims do not make the claims patentable in view of Patil and Naribole.
As to claims 5 and 13, Patil in view of Naribole discloses claims 1 and 9, and does not specifically disclose:
wherein the third antenna port specific field includes information on an index of the third antenna port and a third bitmap,
wherein the third bitmap includes a seventh bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the third and first antenna ports, an eighth bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the third and second antenna ports, and a ninth bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the third and fourth antenna ports,
wherein based on the seventh bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the third and first antenna ports,
wherein based on the seventh bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the third and first antenna ports,
wherein based on the eighth bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the third and second antenna ports,
wherein based on the eighth bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the third and second antenna ports,
wherein based on the ninth bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the third and fourth antenna ports,
wherein based on the ninth bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the third and fourth antenna ports.
However, Patil teaches using a bitmap to represent certain information elements ([0215], [0153], [0179]); using a third bitmap for the third antenna port which provides information on an index of the third antenna port with the order of the bitmap providing information on an index and each bit in the bitmap indicating a specific feature (such as assigning the seventh bit for NSTR/STR feature between the third and first antenna ports, and etc.) is considered as a design choice and would have been obvious to OOSA according to MPEP 2143(F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application that the cited claim limitations in the claims do not make the claims patentable in view of Patil and Naribole.
As to claims 6 and 14, Patil in view of Naribole discloses claims 1 and 9, and does not specifically disclose:
wherein the fourth antenna port specific field includes information on an index of the fourth antenna port and a fourth bitmap,
wherein the fourth bitmap includes a tenth bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the fourth and first antenna ports, an eleventh bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the fourth and second antenna ports, and a twelfth bit for whether STR or NSTR is supported between the fourth and third antenna ports,
wherein based on the tenth bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the fourth and first antenna ports,
wherein based on the tenth bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the fourth and first antenna ports,
wherein based on the eleventh bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the fourth and second antenna ports,
wherein based on the eleventh bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the fourth and second antenna ports,
wherein based on the twelfth bit being set to 0, the STR is supported between the fourth and third antenna ports, and
wherein based on the twelfth bit being set to 1, the NSTR is supported between the fourth and third antenna ports.
However, Patil teaches using a bitmap to represent certain information elements ([0215], [0153], [0179]); using a fourth bitmap for the fourth antenna port and assigning a specific bit in the fourth bitmap to indicate a specific feature (such as assigning the tenth bit for NSTR/STR feature between the fourth and first antenna ports, and etc.) is considered as a design choice and would have been obvious to OOSA according to MPEP 2143(F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application that the cited claim limitations in the claims do not make the claims patentable in view of Patil and Naribole.
As to claims 7 and 15, Patil in view of Naribole discloses claims 1 and 9, and does not specifically disclose: wherein the DAS element further includes information on a number of the plurality of antenna ports and an index to which the plurality of antenna ports are mapped.
However, Patil teaches using a bitmap to represent the DAS elements ([0215], [0153], [0179]); using a bitmap to present information on a number of the plurality of antenna ports (number of bits in the bitmap) and an index (position of bits in the bitmap) to which the plurality of antenna ports are mapped is considered as a design choice and would have been obvious to OOSA according to MPEP 2143(F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application that the cited claim limitations in the claims do not make the claims patentable in view of Patil and Naribole.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANYE WU whose telephone number is (571)270-1665. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8am-6pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/JIANYE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights