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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-7 is/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.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 of the current application 18/851616 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 of co-pending Application No. 18/725984. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, co-pending application 18/725984 discloses A method comprising (claim 1: A method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the method comprising) and A station (STA) comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (claim 8: A receiving station (STA) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the receiving STA comprising: a memory; a transceiver; and a processor being operatively connected to the memory and the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to):
receiving a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) including a SIG field for resource unit allocation related information from another STA (claim 1: receiving, by a receiving station (STA), a Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) from a transmitting STA; obtaining, by the receiving STA, control information related to a tone plan by decoding the PPDU); and
obtaining a data field in the PPDU, based on the resource unit allocation related information (claim 1: decoding, by the receiving STA, a data field of the PPDU based on the control information),
wherein the resource unit allocation related information indicates a specific candidate within a set including a pre-defined number of multiple RU (MRU) candidates for a bandwidth exceeding 320 MHz (claim 1: wherein the tone plan includes information on an arrangement of tones or Resource Units (RUs) used within a bandwidth of the PPDU, … wherein based on the bandwidth of the PPDU being 480 MHZ, the tone plan is a 3×2020-tone RU, and wherein based on the bandwidth of the PPDU being 640 MHz, the tone plan is a 4×2020-tone RU. Claim 5: wherein based on the PPDU being 480 MHz and one 40 MHz channel being punctured in the 480 MHz, the tone plan is a 2×2020+996+484-tone MRU, wherein based on the PPDU being 480 MHz and one 80 MHz channel being punctured in the 480 MHz, the tone plan is a 2×2020+996-tone MRU, wherein based on the bandwidth of the PPDU being 480 MHz and one 80 MHz channel and one 40 MHz channel being punctured in the 480 MHz, the tone plan is a 2×2020+484-tone MRU or a 2020+2×996+484-tone MRU, wherein based on the bandwidth of the PPDU being 640 MHz and one 40 MHz channel being punctured in the 640 MHz, the tone plan is a 3×2020+996+484-tone MRU, wherein based on the bandwidth of the PPDU being 640 MHz and one 80 MHz channel being punctured in the 640 MHz, the tone plan is a 3×2020+996-tone MRU, wherein based on the bandwidth of the PPDU being 640 MHz, and one 80 MHz channel and one 40 MHz channel being punctured in the 640 MHz, the tone plan is a 3×2020+484-tone MRU or a 2×2020+2×996+484-tone MRU).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 11 recite “the 480 MHz bandwidth” but it should be “a 480 MHz bandwidth” because it is introduced for the first time.
Claim 3 recites “996-ton” but it should be “996-tone.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein The pre-defined number” but it should be “wherein the pre-defined number.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US 2023/0361941 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Guo discloses A method comprising and A station (STA) comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (Fig. 12, [0221]: apparatus 1200 may be the sending device 201 and the receiving device 202, and includes a communication module 1240 coupled to a processor 1210):
receiving a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) including a SIG field for resource unit allocation related information from another STA (Fig. 4, [0102]-[0103]: sending device 201 sends a data frame (i.e., PPDU) to a receiving device 202. Fig. 5, [0116], [0119]: the data frame includes an EHT-SIG field 506 which comprises of a common field 516 which includes an RU allocation subfield); and
obtaining a data field in the PPDU, based on the resource unit allocation related information (Fig. 5, [0117]: The EHT-SIG field 506 carries signaling used to demodulate subsequent data. The Data field 509 carries data information),
wherein the resource unit allocation related information indicates a specific candidate within a set including a pre-defined number of multiple RU (MRU) candidates for a bandwidth exceeding 320 MHz ([0095], [0109]: specific RUs (MRUs) can be determined based on a transmission resource block occupied by the data frame and RU allocation information in the data frame. [0112]-[0113]: for a 480 MHz bandwidth, the transmission resource block may be any one of (a) a 4×996-tone+996-tone MRU (or denoted as a 5×996-tone MRU), (b) a 4×996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 4×996+484-tone MRU), (c) a 4×996-tone RU; (d) a 2×996-tone+996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 3×996+484-tone MRU), (e) a 2×996-tone+996-tone MRU (or denoted as a 3×996-tone MRU), (f) a 2×996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 2×996+484-tone MRU), and the like).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Guo discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Guo discloses wherein, based on that the bandwidth exceeding 320 MHz corresponds to the 480 MHz bandwidth, the pre-defined number of MRU candidates includes at least one of a first MRU without 80 MHz channel puncturing, a second MRU with one 80 MHz channel puncturing applied, and a third MRU with one 160 MHz channel puncturing applied ([0106], table 1: 996-tone RU in the 80 MHz bandwidth or 80+80/160 MHz bandwidth. [0112]-[0113]: for a 480 MHz bandwidth, the transmission resource block may be any one of (a) a 4×996-tone+996-tone MRU (or denoted as a 5×996-tone MRU), (b) a 4×996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 4×996+484-tone MRU), (c) a 4×996-tone RU; (d) a 2×996-tone+996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 3×996+484-tone MRU), (e) a 2×996-tone+996-tone MRU (or denoted as a 3×996-tone MRU), (f) a 2×996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 2×996+484-tone MRU), and the like. Note: claim requires 80 MHz bandwidth is punctured and/or not punctured. Cited paragraph gives examples for 80 MHz bandwidth that may or may not be punctured).
Regarding claim 16, co-pending application 18/725984 discloses A station (STA) comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (Fig. 12, [0221]: apparatus 1200 may be the sending device 201 and the receiving device 202, and includes a communication module 1240 coupled to a processor 1210):
construct a SIG field for resource unit allocation related information (Fig. 4, [0102]-[0103]: sending device 201 sends a data frame (i.e., PPDU) to a receiving device 202. Fig. 5, [0116], [0119]: the data frame includes an EHT-SIG field 506 which comprises of a common field 516 which includes an RU allocation subfield); and
transmit a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) including the SIG field to another STA (Fig. 4, [0102]-[0103]: sending device 201 sends a data frame (i.e., PPDU) to a receiving device 202. Fig. 5, [0116], [0119]: the data frame includes an EHT-SIG field 506),
wherein the resource unit allocation related information indicates a specific candidate within a set including a pre-defined number of multiple RU (MRU) candidates for a bandwidth exceeding 320 MHz ([0095], [0109]: specific RUs (MRUs) can be determined based on a transmission resource block occupied by the data frame and RU allocation information in the data frame. [0112]-[0113]: for a 480 MHz bandwidth, the transmission resource block may be any one of (a) a 4×996-tone+996-tone MRU (or denoted as a 5×996-tone MRU), (b) a 4×996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 4×996+484-tone MRU), (c) a 4×996-tone RU; (d) a 2×996-tone+996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 3×996+484-tone MRU), (e) a 2×996-tone+996-tone MRU (or denoted as a 3×996-tone MRU), (f) a 2×996-tone+484-tone MRU (or denoted as a 2×996+484-tone MRU), and the like).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2023/0361941 A1) in view of Hart et al. (US 2021/0067283 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Guo discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Guo does not disclose, but Hart discloses wherein the 480 MHz bandwidth includes a 320 MHz channel and a 160 MHz channel, based on that the bandwidth exceeding the above 320 MHz corresponds to the 480 MHz bandwidth ([0023]: for a bandwidth of 480 MHz, the tone plan may be 160+320 MHz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the RUs for a 480 MHz bandwidth, as taught by Guo, to have a tone plan of 160+320 MHz, as taught by Hart.
Doing so provides a streamlined tone plan useful for IEEE 802.11ax with a high degree of reuse, for different bandwidths (Hart: [0023]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2023/0361941 A1) in view of Hart et al. (US 2021/0067283 A1) and Dong et al. (US 2023/0388091 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Guo in view of Hart discloses all features of claim(s) 8 as outlined above.
Guo in view of Hart does not disclose, but Dong discloses wherein the pre-defined number of MRU candidates includes a combination of a pre-defined MRU candidate in a 320 MHz and a pre-defined MRU candidate in a 160 MHz ([0040]: the multi-RU may be consisted of at least two different single-type RUs, e.g., 484+996 tone (160 MHz), 996+484+242 tone (160 MHz), 2×996 tone (160 MHz), 2×996+484 tone (240 MHz), 3×996+484 tone (320 MHz), and 4×996 tone (160+160 MHz/320 MHz)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the RUs for a 480 MHz bandwidth, as taught by Guo, to have a tone plan of 160+320 MHz, as taught by Hart, which consist of two different single-type RUs, e.g., 484+996 tone (160 MHz), 996+484+242 tone (160 MHz), 2×996 tone (160 MHz), 2×996+484 tone (240 MHz), 3×996+484 tone (320 MHz), and 4×996 tone (160+160 MHz/320 MHz), as taught by Dong.
Doing so provides bandwidth dependent multi-RU (Dong: [0040).
Regarding claim(s) 10, Guo discloses all features of claim(s) 9 as outlined above.
Guo discloses wherein a size of the pre-defined MRU candidate in the 320 MHz corresponds to one or more of 4×996 tones, 3×996 tones, 3×996+484 tones, or 2×996+484 tones, and
wherein a size of the pre-defined MRU candidate in the 160 MHz corresponds to one or more of 2×996 tones, 996+484+242 tones, or 996+484 tones ([0040]: the multi-RU may be consisted of at least two different single-type RUs, e.g., 484+996 tone (160 MHz), 996+484+242 tone (160 MHz), 2×996 tone (160 MHz), 2×996+484 tone (240 MHz), 3×996+484 tone (320 MHz), and 4×996 tone (160+160 MHz/320 MHz)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the RUs for a 480 MHz bandwidth, as taught by Guo, to have a tone plan of 160+320 MHz, as taught by Hart, which consist of two different single-type RUs, e.g., 484+996 tone (160 MHz), 996+484+242 tone (160 MHz), 2×996 tone (160 MHz), 2×996+484 tone (240 MHz), 3×996+484 tone (320 MHz), and 4×996 tone (160+160 MHz/320 MHz), as taught by Dong.
Doing so provides bandwidth dependent multi-RU (Dong: [0040).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2023/0361941 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0045151 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Guo discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Guo does not disclose, but Chen discloses wherein the one or more MRU candidates are related to non-orthogonal frequency division multiple access (non-OFDMA) transmission in the 480 MHz bandwidth ([0135], [0152], [0153]: MU-MIMO transmission with a PPDU bandwidth of 480 MHz. [0195]: some concepts may be applicable to RU allocations for non-OFDMA MU-MIMO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the RUs for a 480 MHz bandwidth, as taught by Guo, to be used for non-OFDMA MU-MIMO, as taught by Chen.
Doing so allows the use of a first compression mode in a PPDU on a non-punctured (full bandwidth) wireless channel which allows to omit the RU allocation information in in the common field of the EHT-SIG (Chen: [0221]) thereby reducing overhead.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-4pm.
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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights