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 statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2026, 12/12/2024 and 09/01/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and claims 21-25 are canceled according to preliminary claim amendment filed 09/01/2024.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 20190223224 A1, hereinafter Park in view of Luo et al. US20150085793A1, hereinafter Luo.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a device, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to:
(Park: Summary, Fig. 9 and para. [0151-0160] UE 900 memory 925 is connected to the processor 910 and stores a variety of information required to drive the processor 910, and eNode B 950 processor 960 and stores a variety of information required to drive the processor 960. Para. [0025] software, as a module (process, function, or the like) that executes the described function. The module may be stored in a memory and may be executed by a processor)
utilize a legacy baseband data for a generation of a plurality of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols for a 60 GHz communication;
(Park: para. [0036 & 0034-0040 & 0105 & 0123-0124] non-slot may be used based on a frequency range. For example, a non-slot with a length of 1 OFDM symbol may be considered in a frequency range of 60 gigahertz (GHz) or more. However, the number of OFDM symbols used to define the non-slot may include at least two OFDM symbols and the range thereof may be configured with a mini-slot length up to a normal slot length −1. However, the range thereof may be generally limited to 2, 4, or 7 symbols)
select a subcarriers spacing based on a bandwidth for the 60 GHz communication;
(Park: para. [0142-0144] and Table 9, all of gap determining parameters in the band of 60 GHz or less may be determined based on the SCS of 15 kHz. Table 10, all of gap determining parameters in the band of 60 GHz or more may be determined based on the SCS of 60 kHz)
generate the plurality of OFDM symbols using an upclocking mechanism (according to published Specification para. [0018 & 0062 & 0040] and claim 2, the term “upclocking” is to increase the subcarrier spacing (or SCS) relative to BW) based on the bandwidth for the 60 GHz communication; and
(Park: para. [0143-0144 & 0147 & 0029] apply smaller/larger SCS (corresponds to claim limitation “upclocking mechanism”). Para. [0142-0144] Table 10 and Table 9, all of gap determining parameters in the band of 60 GHz or more may be determined based on the SCS of 60 kHz)
cause to send a plurality of OFDM symbols to a station device. (Park: para. [0105 & 0123-0124 & 0128-0134] After the RRC connection, the default value may be replaced. For example, if the random access procedure is initiated in response to PDCCH order or a beam failure request, a new retransmission timing of msg1 may be indicated to the UE using DCI based on an SCS of the PDCCH order or an SCS of a UL carrier/bandwidth part in which msg1 is transmitted. For example, the DCI may indicate a number of slots, a number of OFDM symbols, or (number of slots)+(number of OFDM symbols) representing the timing determining parameter, such as N or K, based on the SCS in which the PDCCH order is transmitted. As another example, based on the SCS of the UL carrier/bandwidth part in which msg1 is transmitted, the number of slots/number of non-slots, a number of OFDM symbols, or (number of slots)+(number of OFDM symbols) may be predefined)
It is noted that Park does not explicitly disclose: select a fixed number of subcarriers independently of bandwidth selection.
However, Luo from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: select a fixed number of subcarriers independently of bandwidth selection; (Luo: para. [0009] generating includes centering a first reference signal sequence for a fixed set of resource blocks (RBs) around a predetermined common frequency, and wherein the first reference signal sequence for the fixed set of RBs is independent of the system bandwidth. Para. [0069] The fixed set of RBs may, as noted above, be various numbers of center RBs, such as 4, 6, 8, or the like) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Luo in the apparatus of Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for enables cell search when a UE may not be aware of system bandwidth (Luo: para. [0064]), provide for solutions that change the sequence mapping in order to ensure that a UE will know the reference signal sequence in order to demodulate/decode the bandwidth information bearing signals, such as PBCH, ePBCH, and the like, from the network (Luo: para. [0067-0069]), and UE will either know to assume that the same precoding is used for all of the center frequency RBs, in which case a single channel estimate may be generated and used for decoding, or will know the set of precoding parameters that are used along with the progression relationship between the RB and precoding parameter. In the aspect where the center frequency RBs are bundled using a fixed set of precoding parameters, the UE would first align the phase of the first RBs using the known precoding. Then, for each successive RB, the UE would rotate the phase of the channel estimate by the known progression in order to decode the next RB of the center frequency RBs (Luo: para. [0083]).
Regarding 2, Park and Luo teach the device of claim 1, wherein the upclocking mechanism increases the subcarriers spacing relative to the bandwidth. Park: para. [0143-0144 & 0147 & 0029] apply smaller/larger SCS. Para. [0142-0144] Table 10 and Table 9, all of gap determining parameters in the band of 60 GHz or more may be determined based on the SCS of 60 kHz)
Regarding claims 10-11, Park and Luo teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations comprising: (Park: Summary, Fig. 9 and para. [0151-0160] UE 900 memory 925 is connected to the processor 910 and stores a variety of information required to drive the processor 910, and eNode B 950 processor 960 and stores a variety of information required to drive the processor 960. Para. [0025] software, as a module (process, function, or the like) that executes the described function. The module may be stored in a memory and may be executed by a processor) and Park and Luo teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2, and therefore nt-CRM claims 10-11 are rejected using the same rationales.
Regarding claims 19-20, Park and Luo teach method comprising: (Park: Summary, Fig. 9 and para. [0151-0160] UE 900 memory 925 is connected to the processor 910 and stores a variety of information required to drive the processor 910, and eNode B 950 processor 960 and stores a variety of information required to drive the processor 960. Para. [0025] software, as a module (process, function, or the like) that executes the described function. The module may be stored in a memory and may be executed by a processor) and Park and Luo teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2, and therefore method claims 19-20 are rejected using the same rationales.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Luo as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Vermani et al. US 20150304148 A1, hereinafter Vermani.
Regarding claim 3, Park and Luo teach the device of claim 1, Park and Luo does not explicitly teach: wherein the fixed number of subcarriers is 64.
Vermani from the same or similar fields of endeavor teach: wherein the fixed number of subcarriers is 64. (Vermani: Para. [0075] an IEEE 802.11ac-compliant 20 MHz transmission may be downclocked by a factor of four (4) while using 64 sub-carriers). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Vermani in the apparatus of Park and Luo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for transmitter circuit 1602 may utilize orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) for the transmission of multiple subcarriers. For instance, the space-time-frequency mapper 1612 may map (encoded) data 1606 to space, time and/or frequency resources according to the multiplexing scheme used (Vermani: para. [0116-0125]).
Regarding claim 12, Park, Luo and Vermani teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and therefore nt-CRM claim 12 is rejected using the same rationales.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Luo as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US20190253296A1, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 4, Park and Luo teach the device of claim 1, wherein the legacy baseband data is associated with a 20 MHz frequency (Luo: para. [0063] LTE systems may be configured for a number of different system bandwidths, such as 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15, or 20 MHz)
Park and Luo does not explicitly teach: wherein the legacy baseband data is associated with a 20 MHz frequency for IEEE 802.11ac.
Chen from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the legacy baseband data is associated with a 20 MHz frequency for IEEE 802.11ac. (Chen: para. [0075] FIG. 4B, a channel BW of 20 MHz may include 9 26-tone RUs, and para. [0131] 802.11ac 20/40/80 tones plans) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Chen in the apparatus of Park and Luo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for APs and/or STAs that use the high-efficiency 802.11 protocol can experience reduced latency and increased network throughput even as the number of active wireless devices increases, thereby improving user experience (Chen: para. [0063]), and A tone plan may also be chosen based on efficiency. For example, transmissions of different bandwidths (e.g., 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz, or a combination thereof) may have different numbers of tones. Reducing the number of leftover tones may be beneficial. Further, it may be beneficial if a tone plan is configured to preserve 20, 40, 80, 160, and/or 320 MHz boundaries, when needed. For example, it may be desirable to have a tone plan which allows each 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz portion to be decoded separately from each other, rather than having allocations which can be on the boundary between two different 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz portions of the bandwidth. For example, it may be beneficial for interference patterns to be aligned with 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz channels. Further, it may be beneficial to have channel bonding, which may also be known as preamble puncturing, such that when a 20 MHz transmission and a 40 MHz transmission can be transmitted, to create a 20 MHz “hole” in the transmission when transmitted over 80 MHz, 160 MHz, or 320 MHz. This may allow, for example, a legacy packet to be transmitted in this unused portion of the bandwidth. This puncturing may apply to any transmission (e.g., 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz, etc.) and may create “holes” of at least 20 MHz in the transmission regardless of the channel or bandwidth being used. Finally, it may also be advantageous to use a tone plan which provides for fixed pilot tone locations in various different transmissions, such as in different bandwidths (Chen: para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 5, Park and Luo teach the device of claim 1, Park and Luo do not explicitly teach: wherein a legacy subcarriers spacing is 312.5 kHz.
Chen from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein a legacy subcarriers spacing is 312.5 kHz. (Chen: [0077] The 1× symbol durations may have a tone spacing of 312.5 kHz) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Chen in the apparatus of Park and Luo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for APs and/or STAs that use the high-efficiency 802.11 protocol can experience reduced latency and increased network throughput even as the number of active wireless devices increases, thereby improving user experience (Chen: para. [0063]), and A tone plan may also be chosen based on efficiency. For example, transmissions of different bandwidths (e.g., 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz, or a combination thereof) may have different numbers of tones. Reducing the number of leftover tones may be beneficial. Further, it may be beneficial if a tone plan is configured to preserve 20, 40, 80, 160, and/or 320 MHz boundaries, when needed. For example, it may be desirable to have a tone plan which allows each 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz portion to be decoded separately from each other, rather than having allocations which can be on the boundary between two different 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz portions of the bandwidth. For example, it may be beneficial for interference patterns to be aligned with 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz channels. Further, it may be beneficial to have channel bonding, which may also be known as preamble puncturing, such that when a 20 MHz transmission and a 40 MHz transmission can be transmitted, to create a 20 MHz “hole” in the transmission when transmitted over 80 MHz, 160 MHz, or 320 MHz. This may allow, for example, a legacy packet to be transmitted in this unused portion of the bandwidth. This puncturing may apply to any transmission (e.g., 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 MHz, etc.) and may create “holes” of at least 20 MHz in the transmission regardless of the channel or bandwidth being used. Finally, it may also be advantageous to use a tone plan which provides for fixed pilot tone locations in various different transmissions, such as in different bandwidths (Chen: para. [0070]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Park, Luo and Chen teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 4-5, and therefore nt-CRM claims 13-14 are rejected using the same rationales.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 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. Please also see PTO-892.
Nabetani et al. US 10321481 B2 teaches bandwidths of the resource units (or the number of the subcarriers) may be same among the resource units, or the bandwidths (or the number of the subcarriers) may vary depending on the individual resource units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUTCHUNG CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4064. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/WUTCHUNG CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights