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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 11/26/24.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
4. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 10/15/25 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawing
6. The drawings filed on 09/20/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
7. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggested to change the title to “IMPLMENTING HARQ TRANSMISSION IN THE WLAN SYSTEM TO IMPROVE TRANSMISSION RELIABILITY AND EFFICIENCY”
Claims Objections
8. Claims 15-20 are objected to because of minor informalities:
9. Claim 15 recites, a non-functional descriptive material limitations, "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having processor-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, facilitate:”
In particular, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium cannot process data instruction alone, and require enabling a computer processor/CPU to process the data instruction in order to impart/convey a patentable distinction of a claim.
For clarity, it is suggested to amend as follow:
a non-functional descriptive material limitations, " a non-functional descriptive material limitations, "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having processor-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by a CPU/a Processor, facilitate:
10. Claims 16-20 are also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claim set forth above.
Double Patenting
11. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
12. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Gan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12, 126, 444 B2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Regarding claims 1: Gan discloses a data unit sending method, comprising:
sending, by a transmit end, a first aggregated media access control protocol data unit (A-MPDU) comprising a first A-MPDU subframe, wherein the first A-MPDU subframe comprises a media access control protocol data unit (MPDU) and a first MPDU delimiter, and wherein the first MPDU delimiter comprises a first end of frame (EOF) field and a first MPDU length field (See Col. 22; Claim 1; lines 11-22);
sending, by the transmit end, a second A-MPDU, wherein the second A-MPDU comprises a second A-MPDU subframe, wherein the second A-MPDU subframe comprises the MPDU and a second MPDU delimiter, and wherein the second MPDU delimiter comprises a second EOF field and a second MPDU length field;
wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field (See Col. 22; Claim 1; lines 23-33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 of this title, 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.
14. Claims 1-4, 8-11 & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian et al. (hereinafter referred as Cherian) US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0254861 A1, in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter referred as Wang) International Publication No. WO 2015/142932 A1.
Regarding claim 1: Cherian discloses a data unit sending method, comprising:
sending, by a transmit end (corresponding to apparatus), a first aggregated media access control protocol data unit (A-MPDU) (See FIG. 4B & Para. 0095; the apparatus transmits a first frame to a second device. The first frame includes a first A-MPDU) comprising a first A-MPDU subframe, wherein the first A-MPDU subframe comprises a media access control protocol data unit (MPDU) (See Para. 0062; “In some examples, the first device may be configured to transmit a second frame. The second frame may include the at least one of the one or more non-single MPDUs transmitted in the first A-MPDU of the first frame determined not to have been received. In some examples, the second frame does not comprise the at least one of the one or more non-single MPDUs transmitted in the first A-MPDU of the first frame determined to have been received. In some examples, transmission of the second frame constitutes a re-transmission of the at least one of the one or more non-single MPDUs transmitted in the first A-MPDU of the first frame determined not to have been received. The first device may be configured to determine that at least one of the one or more non-single MPDUs transmitted in the first A-MPDU of the first frame was received”) and a first MPDU delimiter, and wherein the first MPDU delimiter comprises a first end of frame (EOF) field and a first MPDU length field (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0049, 0057 & 0065; MPDU delimiter, EOF and length);
sending, by the transmit end, a second A-MPDU, wherein the second A-MPDU comprises a second A-MPDU subframe, wherein the second A-MPDU subframe comprises the MPDU and a second MPDU delimiter, and wherein the second MPDU delimiter comprises a second EOF field and a second MPDU length field (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0065).
Cherian does not explicitly disclose wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field.
However, Wang from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field (See Para. 0238-0239 & Claim 127; MPDU subframes 2304 and 2309 may remain the same as the original transmission. Further, the MPDU delimiters 2305 and 2308 of the retransmission MPDU subframes may either remain the same as the original transmission…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field as taught by Wang in the system of Cherian for identifying different types of reception failures of a packet (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 8: Cherian discloses a data unit receiving (corresponding a second device) method, comprising:
receiving, by a receive end, a first aggregated media access control protocol data unit (A-MPDU) (See FIG. 4B & Para. 0095; the apparatus transmits a first frame to a second device. The first frame includes a first A-MPDU) comprising a first A-MPDU subframe, wherein the first A-MPDU subframe comprises a media access control protocol data unit (MPDU) and a first MPDU delimiter, and wherein the first MPDU delimiter comprises a first end of frame (EOF) field and a first MPDU length field;
receiving, by the receive end, a second A-MPDU, wherein the second A-MPDU comprises a second A-MPDU subframe (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0062), wherein the second A-MPDU subframe comprises the MPDU and a second MPDU delimiter, wherein the second MPDU delimiter comprises a second EOF field and a second MPDU length field, and (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0065).
Cherian does not explicitly discloses wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field; and performing, by the receive end, combining and decoding or joint decoding on a log-likelihood ratio (LLR) of a coded bit corresponding to the first A-MPDU subframe and an LLR of a coded bit corresponding to the second A-MPDU subframe, to obtain the MPDU.
However, Wang from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field (See Para. 0238-0239 & Claim 127; MPDU subframes 2304 and 2309 may remain the same as the original transmission. Further, the MPDU delimiters 2305 and 2308 of the retransmission MPDU subframes may either remain the same as the original transmission…); and
performing, by the receive end, combining and decoding or joint decoding on a log-likelihood ratio (LLR) of a coded bit corresponding to the first A-MPDU subframe and an LLR of a coded bit corresponding to the second A-MPDU subframe, to obtain the MPDU (See Para. 0248; When the receiving STA receives a partial retransmission for a reception failure Case 1, the receiving STA may combine the retransmitted signal with the original transmission at the receiver to improve the Log Likelihood Ratios (LLRs) of the received bits and improve the link performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field; and performing, by the receive end, combining and decoding or joint decoding on a log-likelihood ratio (LLR) of a coded bit corresponding to the first A-MPDU subframe and an LLR of a coded bit corresponding to the second A-MPDU subframe, to obtain the MPDU as taught by Wang in the system of Cherian for identifying different types of reception failures of a packet (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 2 & 9: The combination of Cherian and Wang disclose a data unit sending method.
Furthermore, Cherian discloses a data unit sending method, wherein the first A-MPDU subframe comprises a first padding field, the second A-MPDU subframe comprises a second padding field, and a value of the first padding field is the same as a value of the second padding field (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0049).
Regarding claims 3 & 10: The combination of Cherian and Wang disclose a data unit sending method.
Furthermore, Cherian discloses a data unit sending method, wherein a value of a retry bit in a frame header of the MPDU in the second A-MPDU is the same as a value of a retry bit in a frame header of the MPDU in the first A-MPDU (See Para. 0062-0065).
Regarding claims 4 & 11: The combination of Cherian and Wang disclose a data unit sending method.
Furthermore, Cherian discloses a data unit sending method, wherein the value of the retry bit in the frame header of the MPDU in the second A-MPDU is set to 0 (See Para. 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 15: Cherian discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0080; a wireless device (i.e., apparatus) includes memory 306) having processor-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, facilitate:
sending, by a transmit end (corresponding to apparatus), a first aggregated media access control protocol data unit (A-MPDU) (See FIG. 4B & Para. 0095; the apparatus transmits a first frame to a second device. The first frame includes a first A-MPDU) comprising a first A-MPDU subframe, wherein the first A-MPDU subframe comprises a media access control protocol data unit (MPDU) (See Para. 0062; “In some examples, the first device may be configured to transmit a second frame. The second frame may include the at least one of the one or more non-single MPDUs transmitted in the first A-MPDU of the first frame determined not to have been received. In some examples, the second frame does not comprise the at least one of the one or more non-single MPDUs transmitted in the first A-MPDU of the first frame determined to have been received. In some examples, transmission of the second frame constitutes a re-transmission of the at least one of the one or more non-single MPDUs transmitted in the first A-MPDU of the first frame determined not to have been received. The first device may be configured to determine that at least one of the one or more non-single MPDUs transmitted in the first A-MPDU of the first frame was received”) and a first MPDU delimiter, and wherein the first MPDU delimiter comprises a first end of frame (EOF) field and a first MPDU length field;
sending, by the transmit end, a second A-MPDU, wherein the second A-MPDU comprises a second A-MPDU subframe, wherein the second A-MPDU subframe comprises the MPDU and a second MPDU delimiter, and wherein the second MPDU delimiter comprises a second EOF field and a second MPDU length field (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0065).
Cherian does not explicitly disclose wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field.
However, Wang from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field (See Para. 0238-0239 & Claim 127; MPDU subframes 2304 and 2309 may remain the same as the original transmission. Further, the MPDU delimiters 2305 and 2308 of the retransmission MPDU subframes may either remain the same as the original transmission…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a value of the second EOF field is the same as a value of the first EOF field, and a value of the second MPDU length field is the same as a value of the first MPDU length field as taught by Wang in the system of Cherian for identifying different types of reception failures of a packet (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Cherian and Wang disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Furthermore, Cherian discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the first A-MPDU subframe comprises a first padding field, the second A-MPDU subframe comprises a second padding field, and a value of the first padding field is the same as a value of the second padding field (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Cherian and Wang disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Furthermore, Cherian discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a value of a retry bit in a frame header of the MPDU in the second A-MPDU is the same as a value of a retry bit in a frame header of the MPDU in the first A-MPDU (See Para. 0062-0065).
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Cherian and Wang disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Furthermore, Cherian discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the value of the retry bit in the frame header of the MPDU in the second A-MPDU is set to 0 (See Para. 0065-0066).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 5-7, 12-14 & 19-20 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 and ODP rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
16. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Cho et al. 2021/0091887 A1 (Title: ACK and determination and retransmission techniques utilizing secondary wireless channel) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Kneckt et al. 2021/0075542 A1 (Title: PHY-based hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Sun et al. 2020/0396025 A1 (Title: HARQ for wireless local area network) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights