DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 has been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings were received on 10/23/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
6. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claim 16 recites “the same resource unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation within the claim.
b) Claim 18 recites “the first data” and “the second data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation within the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-3, 6-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2008/0049654 A1 to Otal et al. (hereinafter “Otal”).
Regarding Claim 1, Otal discloses an access point (Otal: Figure 1A, element device 115, operable to generate/propagate a PPDU.), comprising:
a processing device (Otal: Figure 1A, element device 115, operable to generate/propagate a PPDU, necessarily requiring a processor.) operable to:
determine, at a medium access control (MAC) layer, a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for a first set of orthogonal frequency duplex multiplexing (OFDM) symbols (Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU – MPDU).);
determine, at the MAC layer, a second MCS for a second set of OFDM symbols (Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU <–> MPDU -> PSDU). NOTE: a first MCS for a first set of OFDM symbols may be the same as or different from the second MCS for a second set of OFDM symbols – the language of the claim allows for this interpretation, since the values of these modulations and/or coding rates are not delineated from one another.);
generate, at the MAC layer, one or more aggregate MAC protocol data units (A-MPDUs) including the first MCS and the second MCS (Otal: [0006], [0063-0070] – corresponds to aggregating MPDUs according to MCS values, which may be the same or may be different.); and
send, from the MAC layer to a physical layer (PHY), the one or more A-MPDUs to generate a PHY service data unit (PSDU) including the first MCS and the second MCS (Otal: [0031-0038] – corresponds to the inclusion of PSDU-DATA with a mid-amble which allows a receiver station to receive and decode an aggregate MPDU including the associated MCS (MMRA). The MCS may be variable for robustness, but allows for multiple MCSs in consideration of the aggregated MPDUs that are transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 2, Otal discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further operable to:
indicate one or more of a number of MCS levels or a number of the one or more OFDM symbols in a preamble (Otal: [0043-0046] – corresponds to the inclusion of an indication directed to MCS types and the lengths of a PDU (number of symbols).).
Regarding Claim 3, Otal discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein an MCS is less than an MCS number threshold and a number of one or more OFDM symbols is less than an OFDM number threshold (Otal: [0043] – each of the MCS values may have a particular number/value, and each MPDU/PPDU may have a corresponding length (number of symbols).).
Regarding Claim 6, Otal discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further operable [to use modulation between the end of a preamble and a beginning of a data field to facilitate the first MCS and the second MCS in the PSDU] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended result, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the processing device. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0038-0042] – corresponds to the inclusion of PSDU-DATA with a mid-amble which allows a receiver station to receive and decode an aggregate MPDU including the associated MCS (MMRA). The MCS may be variable for robustness, but allows for multiple MCSs in consideration of the aggregated MPDUs that are transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 7, Otal discloses the access point of claim 6, wherein the processing device is further operable to select the first MCS value [to facilitate robustness compared to the second MCS value] and select the second MCS value [to facilitate throughput compared to the first MCS value] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended result, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the processing device. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. (Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU <–> MPDU -> PSDU). NOTE: a first MCS for a first set of OFDM symbols may be the same as or different from the second MCS for a second set of OFDM symbols – the language of the claim allows for this interpretation, since the values of these modulations and/or coding rates are not delineated from one another.).
Regarding Claim 8, Otal discloses an access point (Otal: Figure 1A, element device 115, operable to generate/propagate a PPDU.), comprising:
a processing device (Otal: Figure 1A, element device 115, operable to generate/propagate a PPDU, necessarily requiring a processor.) operable to:
determine a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for a first resource unit of one or more orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols (Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU – MPDU). OFDM splits signals to be transmitted at the same time, but at different frequencies. Therefore, Otal discloses transmission of different MCS per a set of OFDM symbols.);
determine a second MCS for a second resource unit of the one or more OFDM symbols (Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU <–> MPDU -> PSDU). OFDM splits signals to be transmitted at the same time, but at different frequencies. Therefore, Otal discloses transmission of different MCS per a set of OFDM symbols. NOTE: a first MCS for a first set of OFDM symbols may be the same as or different from the second MCS for a second set of OFDM symbols – the language of the claim allows for this interpretation, since the values of these modulations and/or coding rates are not delineated from one another.); and
generate the one or more OFDM symbols including the first MCS and the second MCS (Otal: [0006], [0063-0070] – corresponds to aggregating MPDUs according to MCS values, which may be the same or may be different.); and
a transceiver operable to transmit the one or more OFDM symbols to a station (STA) (Otal: [0031-0038] – corresponds to the inclusion of PSDU-DATA with a mid-amble which allows a receiver station to receive and decode an aggregate MPDU including the associated MCS (MMRA). The MCS may be variable for robustness, but allows for multiple MCSs in consideration of the aggregated MPDUs that are transmitted. In Figure 1A, a transceiver is required at the device 115 for transmission of the PPDU.).
Regarding Claim 9, Otal discloses the access point of claim 8, wherein the one or more OFDM symbols include repeated OFDM symbols in a time domain [to facilitate a threshold robustness level] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended result, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the processing device. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. As is known in the art, OFDM splits signals to be transmitted at the same time (repeated), but at different frequencies. Therefore, Otal discloses transmission of different MCS per a set of OFDM symbols. See [0030-0042] - corresponds to the inclusion of PSDU-DATA with a mid-amble which allows a receiver station to receive and decode an aggregate MPDU including the associated MCS (MMRA). The MCS may be variable for robustness, but allows for multiple MCSs in consideration of the aggregated MPDUs that are transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 10, Otal discloses the access point of claim 8, wherein the processing device is further operable to repeat one or more output bits of an encoder [to facilitate a threshold robustness level] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended result, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the processing device. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0043-0048] – corresponds to a tuple of bit information that may be repeated in one or more fields of the MPDU.).
Regarding Claim 11, Otal discloses the access point of claim 8, wherein the processing device is further operable to select the first MCS value [to facilitate robustness compared to the second MCS value] and select the second MCS value [to facilitate throughput compared to the first MCS value] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended result, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the processing device. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. (Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU <–> MPDU -> PSDU). NOTE: a first MCS for a first set of OFDM symbols may be the same as or different from the second MCS for a second set of OFDM symbols – the language of the claim allows for this interpretation, since the values of these modulations and/or coding rates are not delineated from one another.).
Regarding Claim 12, Otal discloses a method for increasing robustness in a local area network (LAN), comprising:
identifying a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for a first data [to facilitate a first robustness level] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the identification. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU – MPDU).);
identifying a second MCS for a second data [to facilitate a second robustness level] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the identification. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU <–> MPDU -> PSDU). NOTE: a first MCS for a first set of OFDM symbols may be the same as or different from the second MCS for a second set of OFDM symbols – the language of the claim allows for this interpretation, since the values of these modulations and/or coding rates are not delineated from one another.);
and
generating one or more OFDM symbols including a first MCS for the first data and the second MCS for the second data [to facilitate the first robustness level for the first data and the second robustness level for the second data] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the generating. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0006], [0063-0070] – corresponds to aggregating MPDUs according to MCS values, which may be the same or may be different.).
Regarding Claim 13, Otal discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
generating one or more aggregate medium access control protocol data units
(A-MPDUs) including the first MCS and the second MCS (Otal: [0006], [0063-0070] – corresponds to aggregating MPDUs according to MCS values, which may be the same or may be different.); and
sending the one or more A-MPDUs to generate a PHY service data unit (PSDU) including the first MCS and the second MCS (Otal: [0031-0038] – corresponds to the inclusion of PSDU-DATA with a mid-amble which allows a receiver station to receive and decode an aggregate MPDU including the associated MCS (MMRA). The MCS may be variable for robustness, but allows for multiple MCSs in consideration of the aggregated MPDUs that are transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 14, Otal discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising:
[using modulation between the end of a preamble and a beginning of a data field] [to facilitate the first MCS and the second MCS in the PSDU] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the method. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0038-0042] – corresponds to the inclusion of PSDU-DATA with a mid-amble which allows a receiver station to receive and decode an aggregate MPDU including the associated MCS (MMRA). The MCS may be variable for robustness, but allows for multiple MCSs in consideration of the aggregated MPDUs that are transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 15, Otal discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
generating repeated OFDM symbols in a time domain [to facilitate a threshold
robustness level] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the processing device. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. As is known in the art, OFDM splits signals to be transmitted at the same time (repeated), but at different frequencies. Therefore, Otal discloses transmission of different MCS per a set of OFDM symbols. See [0030-0042] - corresponds to the inclusion of PSDU-DATA with a mid-amble which allows a receiver station to receive and decode an aggregate MPDU including the associated MCS (MMRA). The MCS may be variable for robustness, but allows for multiple MCSs in consideration of the aggregated MPDUs that are transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 16, Otal discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
generating the one or more OFDM symbols on the same resource unit [to
facilitate transmission of the one or more OFDM symbols to a single station (STA)] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the generating. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. As is known in the art, OFDM splits signals to be transmitted at the same time (repeated), but at different frequencies. Therefore, Otal discloses transmission of different MCS per a set of OFDM symbols. See [0030-0042].).
Regarding Claim 17, Otal discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
generating one or more output bits of an encoder [to facilitate a threshold robustness level] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the generating. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0043-0047] – corresponds to a number of bytes (a plurality of bits) that are transmitted in the MPDU.).
Regarding Claim 18, Otal discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
selecting the second MCS [to facilitate a higher robustness level than the first MCS], wherein the first data is a regular data frame and the second data is a high-priority frame (Interpreted to correspond to determining an MCS based on a quality of service (QoS) as described in at least [0027-0029] and [0071-0082].).
Regarding Claim 20, Otal discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
selecting the first MCS value [to facilitate robustness compared to the second MCS value] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the selecting. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU – MPDU).) and select the second MCS value [to facilitate throughput compared to the first MCS value] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the selecting. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction. Otal: [0006], [0030-0034] – corresponds to determining an MCS (Multiple MCS and Receiver Aggregation, MMRA) for one or more PPDUs; since Otal discusses modulation and coding rates for signals in Wi-Fi4 (802.11n, [0030-0031]), it is required that OFDM (symbols/subcarriers) be utilized as the scheme to carry data, particular to the discussion of both 20MHz and 40MHz channels. Therefore, OFDM symbols of the PPDU may be coded differently, or have different rates applied. See for example [0068-0083]. Examiner considers an MCS or multiple MCSs to correspond to one or more of a different modulation, different coding rates, different modulation and different coding rates. Also from the disclosure of the cited portions, a determination includes determining an MCS at a MAC layer from a PHY layer (PPDU <–> MPDU -> PSDU). NOTE: a first MCS for a first set of OFDM symbols may be the same as or different from the second MCS for a second set of OFDM symbols – the language of the claim allows for this interpretation, since the values of these modulations and/or coding rates are not delineated from one another.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otal in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0248647 A1 to Di Taranto et al. (hereinafter “Di Taranto”).
Regarding Claim 4, Otal discloses the access point of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first set of OFDM symbols is assigned the first MCS to transmit a short communication type.
However, this type of MCS cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Di Taranto. Di Taranto is similarly concerned with selecting an MCS (Di Taranto: [0001]). Di Taranto discloses a first set of OFDM symbols is assigned the first MCS to transmit a short communication type (Di Taranto: [0007] – in an OFDMA system (comprising a number of symbols) utilizes an MCS selection for either an ACK or a NACK. See also [0055].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the MCS selection of Otal in view of the MCS selection of Di Taranto to select an MCS for short communications for the reasons of choosing an MCS that adapts in view of channel conditions (Otal: [0008-0009]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Otal and Di Taranto discloses the access point of claim 4, wherein Di Taranto further discloses the short communication type is an acknowledgement (Di Taranto: [0007] – in an OFDMA system (comprising a number of symbols) utilizes an MCS selection for either an ACK or a NACK. See also [0055].).
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claim 19 is 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
18. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 September 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights