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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication received September 27th, 2024. Claims 1-20 have been entered and are presented for examination.
Application 18/899,245 is a Continuation of US Application 18/327,216 06/01/2023 now US Patent 12126550, US Application 18/327,216 is a Divisional of 16/559,605 09/03/2019 now Patent 11711183, US Application 16/559,605 has US Provisional Application 62/749,041 10/22/2018, US Provisional Application 16/559,605 has US Provisional Application 62/744,626 10/11/2018, US Provisional Application 16/559,605 has US Provisional Application 62/726,968 09/04/2018.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,245,501. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter is the same.
Regarding claim 1, ‘501 discloses a first access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the first AP to: transmit, to at least a second AP during a first portion of a transmission opportunity, a first resource assignment that indicates a first sub-channel for coordinated communications between the second AP and at least a first station during a second portion of the transmission opportunity; transmit, to at least the second AP, an indication of a start of the second portion of the transmission opportunity; and perform the coordinated communications between the first AP and at least a second station associated with the first AP during the second portion of the transmission opportunity based at least in part on the indication (see Claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, ‘501 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: receive a first scheduling indicator from the second AP based at least in part on the first resource assignment; and transmit, to a third AP, a second resource assignment for coordinated communications between the third AP and at least a third station during the second portion of the transmission opportunity (see Claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, ‘501 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: receive a second scheduling indicator from the third AP based at least in part on the second resource assignment (see Claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, ‘501 discloses wherein: the first resource assignment is configured in a single user physical protocol data unit (SU PPDU) format (see Claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, ‘501 discloses the first resource assignment is configured to allocate resources for coordinated communications between the second AP and at least the first station, and between a third AP and at least a third station (see Claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, ‘501 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the first resource assignment to include an AP identifier and corresponding resources of the second portion of the transmission opportunity for at least the second AP (see Claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, ‘501 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station in a multi-AP physical protocol data unit (MAP PPDU) format or in a high efficiency trigger based physical protocol data unit (HE TB PPDU) format (see Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, ‘501 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station to include an AP identifier for the second AP in a station identifier (STAID) field (see Claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, ‘501 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station to include a mapping of an AP identifier for the second AP to corresponding resources of the second portion of the transmission opportunity for at least the second AP, wherein the mapping is configured to be located in a new field of a high efficiency trigger-based physical protocol data unit (HE TB PPDU) (see Claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, ‘501 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station to include a mapping of an AP identifier for the first AP to corresponding resources of the second portion of the transmission opportunity for at least the first AP, wherein the mapping is located in a reserved field of a high efficiency trigger-based physical protocol data unit (HE TB PPDU) (see Claim 10).
Claims 11-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,711,183. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter is the same.
Regarding claim 11, ‘183 discloses a first access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the first AP to: transmit, to a second AP and during a first portion of a transmission opportunity, a request to participate in a multi-user transmission during a second portion of the transmission opportunity; receive, from the second AP during the first portion of the transmission opportunity, an indication of intent to participate in the multi-user transmission, wherein the indication of intent includes a request for resources during the second portion of the transmission opportunity; transmit, during an initial period of the second portion of the transmission opportunity, a trigger signal to the second AP indicating a resource assignment including a control channel for the second AP to use to communicate with one or more stations associated with the second AP during the multi-user transmission; and transmit concurrently with the second AP and during the second portion of the transmission opportunity (see Claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, ‘183 discloses wherein the trigger signal indicates that channel sounding is to be performed between transmission of the trigger signal and a beginning of the multi-user transmission, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: perform a channel sounding procedure between the first AP and the one or more stations associated with the first AP during the channel sounding (see Claim 2).
Regarding claim 13, ‘183 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: transmit, to the one or more stations associated with the second AP that are associated with the multi-user transmission, a control channel assignment message that assigns a control channel for each station; and transmit, via a respective control channel, a resource allocation for a respective station to use for the multi-user transmission (see Claim 3).
Regarding claim 14, ‘183 discloses wherein: the control channel assignment message transmitted in a different physical layer protocol data unit than a data transmission of the multi-user transmission (see Claim 4).
Regarding claim 15, ‘183 discloses wherein: the control channel assignment message is output for transmission in a preamble of a second trigger signal before a data transmission, or in a preamble of the data transmission (see Claims 5-6).
Regarding claim 16, ‘183 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: obtain access to a channel of a shared radio frequency spectrum band for the transmission opportunity (see Claim 7).
Claims 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,550. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter is the same.
Regarding claim 17, ‘550 discloses a wireless station, comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the wireless station to: receive, from an access point (AP), a control channel assignment message that assigns a control channel for the wireless station to use to receive a resource allocation associated with a multi-user transmission during a transmission opportunity; receive, via the control channel and before a data transmission of the multi-user transmission, the resource allocation associated with the multi-user transmission; and participate, using the resource allocation, in the multi-user transmission with the AP (see Claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, ‘550 discloses wherein: the control channel assignment message is received in a different physical layer protocol data unit than the data transmission of the multi-user transmission (see Claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, ‘550 discloses wherein: the control channel assignment message is received in a preamble of a per-AP trigger signal before the data transmission (see Claim 2).
Regarding claim 20, ‘550 discloses wherein: the control channel assignment message is received in a preamble of the data transmission (see Claim 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-3, 5-6, 11-12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 10,454,534).
Regarding claim, 1, Lee et al. discloses a first access point (column, 19 lines 28-50 describe hardware for implementing the methods of the disclosure Fig. 1 shows an AP communicating wirelessly within a network), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry (column 19, lines 28-50 [processor]) and memory circuitry that stores code (column 19, line 65-column 20, line 21 [memory]), the processing system configured to cause the first AP to: transmit, to at least a second AP during a first portion of a transmission opportunity, a first resource assignment that indicates a first sub-channel for coordinated communications between the second AP and at least a first station during a second portion of the transmission opportunity (Abstract, Fig. 4A, Col 6 lines 1-7 The master AP sequentially transmits a Clear to Send (CTS)-Poll frame to the APs designated in the IA-RTS frame.) Fig. 4F shows the second AP in communication with a corresponding station in the IA transmission group during a second portion of the transmission opportunity.; An access point (AP) according to one embodiment may receive first channel information between a station associated with the AP and the AP and second channel information between the station and a neighboring AP to perform interference alignment in cooperation with the AP from the station, and perform interference alignment based on the first channel information and the second channel information); transmit, to at least the second AP, an indication of a start of the second portion of the transmission opportunity (Col 8 lines 1-4 When the APs receiving the IA Synch frame are specified in a BBSID of the IA Synch frame, the APs reset NAVs thereof and simultaneously transmit data to MU STAs thereof using IA after SIFS.); and perform the coordinated communications between the first AP and at least a second station associated with the first AP during the second portion of the transmission opportunity based at least in part on the indication (Col 8 lines 1-4 When the APs receiving the IA Synch frame are specified in a BBSID of the IA Synch frame, the APs simultaneously transmit data to MUSTAs thereof using IA after SIFS. Fig. 4F shows each AP communicating with its own station during a second portion of TXOP based on the IA sync frame.).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. discloses the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: receive a first scheduling indicator from the second AP based at least in part on the first resource assignment (Col 6 lines 5-7 Only a candidate that intends to participate in IA transmission responds with an IA-CTS frame. Col 15 lines 62-65 Each AP may also notify the master AP of expected duration of data to transmit in IA transmission when IA calculation information is exchanged.); and transmit, to a third AP, a second resource assignment for coordinated communications between the third AP and at least a third station during the second portion of the transmission opportunity (Col 6 lines 5-14 Only a candidate that intends to participate in IA transmission responds with an IA-CTS frame. The candidate APs are
polled in order on the AP list. the master AP transmits a CTS-Poll frame to the AP again to request a response or transmits a CTS-Poll frame to a next AP on the AP list after Point Coordination Function (PCF) Inter Frame Space (PIFS) since the CTS-Poll frame. Fig. 4F shows a third AP in the IA transmission group).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 2 and further discloses
wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: receive a second scheduling indicator from the third AP based at least in part on the second resource assignment (Col 6 lines 5-7 Only a candidate that intends to participate in IA transmission responds with an IA-CTS frame. Col 15 lines 62-65 Each AP may also notify the master AP of expected duration of data to transmit in IA transmission when IA calculation information is exchanged.).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 1 and further discloses wherein: the first resource assignment is configured to allocate resources for coordinated communications between the second AP and at least the first station, and between a third AP and at least a third station (Fig. 4F shows the second AP in communication with a corresponding station in the IA transmission group during a second portion of the transmission opportunity and a third AP in communication with a corresponding station in the IA transmission group at the same time.).
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 5 and further discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the first resource assignment to include an AP identifier and corresponding resources of the second portion of the transmission opportunity for at least the second AP (Col 6 lines 1-7 The master AP sequentially
transmits a Clear to Send (CTS)-Poll frame to the APs designated in the IA-RTS frame. Fig. 7 shows a CTS frame including receiver address which would be the target AP receiving the frame and a duration 712 specifies a remaining TXOP transmission period as described in col 10 lines 43-50.) (The remaining TXOP period is used for IA group transmission when possible within one TXOP period as described in col 9 lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. discloses a first access point (AP) (column, 19 lines 28-50 describe hardware for implementing the methods of the disclosure Fig. 1 shows an AP communicating wirelessly within a network), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (column 19, lines 28-50 and line 65-column 20, line 21 [processor, memory]), the processing system configured to cause the first AP to: transmit, to a second AP and during a first portion of a transmission opportunity, a request to participate in a multi-user transmission during a second portion of the transmission opportunity (Fig. 4A Col 6 lines 1-7 The master AP sequentially transmits a Clear to Send (CTS)-Poll frame to the APs designated in the IA-RTS frame.) Fig. 4F shows the second AP in communication with a corresponding station in the IA transmission group during a second portion of the transmission opportunity.); receive, from the second AP during the first portion of the transmission opportunity, an indication of intent to participate in the multi-user transmission, wherein the indication of intent includes a request for resources during the second portion of the transmission opportunity (see Figure 4B, APs send out CTS); transmit, during an initial period of the second portion of the transmission opportunity (see Figure 4B [CTS indicates the AP wishes to transmit and resources need to be allocated]), a trigger signal to the second AP indicating a resource assignment including a control channel for the second AP to use to communicate with one or more stations associated with the second AP during the multi-user transmission; and transmit concurrently with the second AP and during the second portion of the transmission opportunity (see Figure 4E [RTS/CTS]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 11 and further discloses wherein the trigger signal indicates that channel sounding is to be performed between transmission of the trigger signal and a beginning of the multi-user transmission, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: perform a channel sounding procedure between the first AP and the one or more stations associated with the first AP during the channel sounding (column 4, lines 52-59 [after APs to participate in transmission using IA (hereinafter, “participant AP”) are determined, each participant AP performs sounding and receives feedback on channel information in each BSS. Here, stations (STAs) belonging to each AP feed channel status information on not only the AP of a BSS that the STAs belong to but also other APs participating in IA back to the AP of the BSS of the STAs.]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 11 and further discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: obtain access to a channel of a shared radio frequency spectrum band for the transmission opportunity (see Figure 4B).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 10,454,534) in view of Chu et al. (US20130155953A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first resource assignment is configured in a single user physical protocol data unit (SU PPDU) format.
However, Chu et al. discloses wherein: the first resource assignment is configured in a single user physical protocol data unit (SU PPDU) format ([0034] In one embodiment, the devices in the communication network use Request-To-Send (RTS) and Clear-To-Send (CTS) signals, contained in PPDUs, to coordinate an upcoming transmission.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to understand that the CTS frames of Lee are SU-PPDUs in view of Chu because CTS signals are contained in PPDUs and in LEE directed towards a single destination making it a single user type PPDU in order coordinate an upcoming transmission.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 10,454,534) in view of Seok et al. (US20200037342A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station in a multi-AP physical protocol data unit (MAP PPDU) format or in a high efficiency trigger based physical protocol data unit (HE TB PPDU) format.
However, Seok et al. discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station in a multi-AP physical protocol data unit (MAP PPDU) format or in a high efficiency trigger based physical protocol data unit (HE TB PPDU) format ([0039] Generally speaking, in 6 GHz band WLANs, since typically only HE STAs are involved in transmission, the MU-RTS /CTS (normally transmitted in a non-HT duplicate PPDU) can be replaced by the BQRP Trigger frame/BQR carried in an HE SU/MU PPDU and an HE TB PPDU respectively. [0040] When the BQRP Trigger frame/BQR is used to set the NAV, a STA can use information from the BQRP Trigger frame as the most recent basis to update its NAV setting.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the communications with the STAs during the TXOP duration with the HE TB PPDUs of Seok in order to support next generation WIFI networks and to have TXOP protection.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 10,454,534) in view of Seok et al. (US20200037342A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US9237048B); hereinafter; "Lee048."
Regarding claim 8, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 7, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station to include an AP identifier for the second AP in a station identifier (STAID) field.
However, Lee048 discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station to include an AP identifier for the second AP in a station identifier (STAID) field (Abstract The method includes generating, by an access point (AP), a Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) including a signal field and a data field, and transmitting, by the AP, the PPDU to a station. The signal field includes a reception target indicator and an identifier field. The reception target indicator indicates whether a target of the PPDU is the AP or the station. The identifier field includes a local AP identifier identifying the AP when the reception target indicator indicates that the target of the PPDU is the station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the communications the references as combined with the PPDU identifiers of Lee048 in order to determine where the reception of the PPDU is intended
Claim(s) 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0366666) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0295560).
Regarding claim 17, Yang et al. discloses a wireless station (see Figure 10 and paragraph 0059 [cellular telephone]), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the wireless station to: receive, from an access point (AP), a control channel assignment message that assigns a control channel for the wireless station to use to receive a resource allocation associated with a multi-user transmission during a transmission opportunity (paragraphs 0015-0017, 0030, 0034 [an indication of the extended HE-SIG-B area is provided explicitly (e.g., in an explicit resource indication of extended HE-SIG-B content); the extended HE-SIG-B area can be used to carry control information]).
Yang et al. discloses the extended HE-SIG B can comprise a MAC trigger frame for uplink multi-user operation (paragraphs 0049-0050), but does not disclose receive, via the control channel and before a data transmission of the multi-user transmission, the resource allocation associated with the multi-user transmission; and participate, using the resource allocation, in the multi-user transmission with the AP.
However, Kim et al. discloses receive, via the control channel and before a data transmission of the multi-user transmission, the resource allocation associated with the multi-user transmission; and participate, using the resource allocation, in the multi-user transmission with the AP (see Figure 19 and paragraph 0146 [the trigger frame may include UL MU allocation information for the uplink transmissions]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize a trigger frame from the extended HE SIG B field could include an allocation for the uplink MU transmission.
Regarding claims 20, Yang et al. further discloses wherein the control channel assignment message is received in a preamble of the data transmission (see Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 13-15, 18-19 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 the double patenting rejections must be addressed.
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious:
configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station to include a mapping of an AP identifier for the second AP to corresponding resources of the second portion of the transmission opportunity for at least the second AP, wherein the mapping is configured to be located in a new field of a high efficiency trigger-based physical protocol data unit (HE TB PPDU) (Claim 9), or
configure the coordinated communications with at least the second station to include a mapping of an AP identifier for the first AP to corresponding resources of the second portion of the transmission opportunity for at least the first AP, wherein the mapping is located in a reserved field of a high efficiency trigger-based physical protocol data unit (HE TB PPDU) (Claim 10), or
transmit, to the one or more stations associated with the second AP that are associated with the multi-user transmission, a control channel assignment message that assigns a control channel for each station; and transmit, via a respective control channel, a resource allocation for a respective station to use for the multi-user transmission (Claim 13), or
wherein: the control channel assignment message transmitted in a different physical layer protocol data unit than a data transmission of the multi-user transmission (Claim 14, dependent on claim 13),
the control channel assignment message is output for transmission in a preamble of a second trigger signal before a data transmission, or in a preamble of the data transmission (Claim 15), or
the control channel assignment message is received in a different physical layer protocol data unit than the data transmission of the multi-user transmission (Claim 18), or
wherein: the control channel assignment message is received in a preamble of a per-AP trigger signal before the data transmission (Claim 19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights