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 5, 6, 7, 15, 20 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US-20140362840) in view of Kanaya (US-20230139852).
As to claim 1, 11, 16: Wong teaches a wireless device to implement an access point (AP), the wireless device comprising: a radio frequency transceiver; a memory device storing a set of instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory device, wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the AP ([0022] Any of the various WDEVs 210-234 may be access points (APs) or wireless stations (STAs)) to: determine a scrambling seed that is to be used for a joint transmission ([0129] A group of coordinated APs may jointly transmit data to multiple STAs… In this instance, the same MCS should be used, and the same scrambler value should be used and the same encryption), wherein the AP and one or more other APs are to participate in the joint transmission to a station (STA) ([0129] APs within X-dB received… power of the associated AP may be allowed to participate in JTTP. All APs participating in JTTP would receive a copy of the downlink data for this STA); … ; and transmit, as part of the joint transmission, a frame to the STA using the scrambling seed ([0061] For downlink (DL) transmissions, APs are synchronized and send the same DL frame to the STA at the same time… In order for the downlink transmissions sent from separate APs to be combined at the recipient STA, the PHY payload and the scrambler fields of each AP’s transmission has to be identical).
Wong may not explicitly teach determine a basic service set (BSS) color for a virtual BSS that is jointly operated by the AP and the one or more other APs based on identifiers associated with the AP and the one or more other Aps wherein a preamble of the frame indicates the BSS color for the virtual BSS. However, Kanaya teaches determine a basic service set (BSS) color for a virtual BSS that is jointly operated by the AP and the one or more other APs ([0124, 125] An AP included in the static multi-AP group, dynamic multi-AP group, or virtual BSS may have a BSS color common in the AP group (AP group specific information) based on identifiers associated with the AP and the one or more other Aps ([0071] The U-SIG includes a basic service set (BSS) color and a band width. The BSS color is information for identifying an AP to which a radio wave belongs) wherein a preamble of the frame indicates the BSS color for the virtual BSS ([0123] This allows the STA to receive a preamble including the BSS color of the association AP in the non-coordinated communication and to receive a preamble including the BSS color for coordination in the coordinated communication).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement BSS color, taught by Kanaya, into the communication system, taught by Wong, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and create coordinated AP group transmissions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Wong and Kanaya in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12, 13, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US-20140362840), Kanaya (US-20230139852) in view of Lee (EP-3353901-B1).
As to claim 2, 12, 17: Wong teaches the method of claim 1.
Wong may not explicitly teach further comprising: transmitting the scrambling seed to the one or more other APs prior to the joint transmission to allow the one or more other APs to use the scrambling seed when transmitting a frame to the STA as part of the joint transmission. However, Lee teaches further comprising: transmitting the scrambling seed to the one or more other APs prior to the joint transmission to allow the one or more other APs to use the scrambling seed when transmitting a frame to the STA as part of the joint transmission ([-0010, 73] A scrambling seed value for the scrambling may be, for example, predetermined, broadcasted by an access point (AP) in a management frame or beacon frame, or conveyed in the control information of the SIG-A field in an HE PPDU).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement scrambling seeds, taught by Lee, into the communication system, taught by Wong, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and coordinate joint transmissions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Wong in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 3, 13, 18: Wong teaches the method of claim 1.
Wong may not explicitly teach wherein the scrambling seed is predefined or independently generated by the AP and the one or more other APs based on applying predefined rules. However, Lee teaches wherein the scrambling seed is predefined or independently generated by the AP and the one or more other APs based on applying predefined rules ([0073] the initial scrambling seed may be derived and/or determined by… using a fixed value… using the BSSID of the AP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement scrambling seeds, taught by Lee, into the communication system, taught by Wong, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and coordinate joint transmissions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Wong in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US-20140362840) in view of Kanaya (US-20230139852).
As to claim 4, 14, 19: Wong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifiers are any one of: AP addresses (“STAs use a universally unique MAC address … as the RA to represent the group of APs), BSS identifiers (“STAs use the basic service set identification (BSSID) of 1 AP as address 3…”), and BSS colors.
As to claim 10: Wong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the frame is a null data packet (NDP) announcement frame transmitted during a channel sounding process or a data frame that is transmitted following a channel sounding process (“Each AP in the group simultaneously sends a downlink sounding frame (e.g., NDP) to enable STAs that it plans to transmit to in the subsequent frame… to estimate downlink SINR.” / “Each intended STA measures the received SINR and responds with the recommended MCS.” / “APs in the group simultaneously transmit their downlink data packets to their intended STAs.”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US-20140362840), Kanaya (US-20230139852) in view of Hart (US-8971213).
As to claim 8: Wong teaches the method of claim 1.
Wong may not explicitly teach wherein the determining the BSS color for the virtual BSS comprises: applying an exclusive OR (XOR) operation to binary values of the identifiers. However, Hart teaches wherein the determining the BSS color for the virtual BSS comprises: applying an exclusive OR (XOR) operation to binary values of the identifiers (5:65-6:7 the hash of the BSSID is generated by performing an exclusive OR (XOR) on the lowest nibble and the next-lowest nibble of the BSSID (AP MAC address)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement hashing BSSID, taught by Hart, into the communication system, taught by Wong, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and generate consistent BSS. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Wong and Hart in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Wong may not explicitly teach to generate the BSS color for the virtual BSS. However, Kanaya teaches to generate the BSS color for the virtual BSS ([0123-125]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement BSS color, taught by Kanaya, into the communication system, taught by Wong, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and create coordinated AP group transmissions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Wong and Kanaya in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US-20140362840), Kanaya (US-20230139852) in view of Ko (US-20230319629).
As to claim 9: Wong teaches the method of claim 1
Wong may not explicitly teach further comprising: determining an oldest physical layer (PHY) version implemented among the AP and the one or more other APs, wherein the preamble of the frame indicates a PHY version identifier of the oldest PHY version. However, Ko teaches further comprising: determining an oldest physical layer (PHY) version implemented among the AP and the one or more other APs, wherein the preamble of the frame indicates a PHY version identifier of the oldest PHY version ([0206, 209, 271] the PHY version identifier may indicate the PHY version of the PPDU transmitted by the non-AP STA or the AP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement PHY version, taught by Ko, into the communication system, taught by Wong, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and backward compatibility. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Wong and Ko in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Moreover, it is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters or values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. The burden of showing criticality is on Applicant. In re Mason, 87 F.2d 370, 32 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1937); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. U.S., 320 U.S. 1, 57 USPQ 471 (1943); In re Schneider, 148 F.2d 108, 65 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1945); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Saether, 492 F.2d 849, 181 USPQ 36 (CCPA 1974); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since Ko discloses PHY version, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement any version of PHY, including the oldest, absent a showing of criticality by Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights