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 .
Double Patenting
The provisional 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 provisional 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).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. patent application 18,657,610 (hereinafter ‘610). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, ‘610 discloses:
A first access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (claim 1; lines 1-3), the processing system configured to cause the first AP to (claim 1; line 3): transmit a null data packet announcement, wherein the null data packet announcement indicates a sounding occasion and one or more common parameters for a first null data packet transmission for a sounding (claim 1; lines 4-7);
and monitor for a sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion (claim 1; lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 14, ‘610 discloses:
A method for wireless communications by a first access point (AP) (claim 29; lines 1-2), comprising: transmitting a null data packet announcement, wherein the null data packet announcement indicates a sounding occasion and one or more common parameters for a first null data packet transmission for a sounding (claim 29; lines 3-6); and
monitoring for sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion (claim 29; lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 20, ‘610 discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to (claim 21; lines 1-8):
transmit a null data packet announcement, wherein the null data packet announcement indicates a sounding occasion and one or more common parameters for a first null data packet transmission for a sounding (claim 21; lines 9-12);
and monitor for sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion (claim 21; lines 13-18).
Claims 2-13, 15-19 are also rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. patent application ‘610.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. patent application 19,377,936 (hereinafter ‘936) in view of Liu et al. (US 2012/0120839, hereinafter Liu). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, ‘936 discloses:
A first access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (claim 1; lines 1-3), the processing system configured to cause the first AP to (claim 1; line 3): transmit a null data packet announcement, wherein the null data packet announcement indicates a sounding occasion and one or more common parameters for a first null data packet transmission for a sounding (claim 1; lines 4-7).
‘936 dos not explicitly disclose monitoring for a sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses monitoring for a sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion (para 0029-0030; monitoring and transmitting sounding feedback). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘936’s method/system by having Liu’s disclosure in order to improve the quality of service by dynamically adjusting transmission parameters based on the feedback.
Regarding claim 14, ‘936 discloses:
A method for wireless communications by a first access point (AP) (claim 12; lines 1-2), comprising: transmitting a null data packet announcement, wherein the null data packet announcement indicates a sounding occasion and one or more common parameters for a first null data packet transmission for a sounding (claim 12; lines 1-6).
‘936 dos not explicitly disclose monitoring for a sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses monitoring for a sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion (para 0029-0030; monitoring and transmitting sounding feedback). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘936’s method/system by having Liu’s disclosure in order to improve the quality of service by dynamically adjusting transmission parameters based on the feedback.
Regarding claim 20, ‘936 discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to (claim 19; lines 1-2):
transmit a null data packet announcement, wherein the null data packet announcement indicates a sounding occasion and one or more common parameters for a first null data packet transmission for a sounding (claim 19; lines 3-8).
‘936 dos not explicitly disclose monitoring for a sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses monitoring for a sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion (para 0029-0030; monitoring and transmitting sounding feedback). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘936’s method/system by having Liu’s disclosure in order to improve the quality of service by dynamically adjusting transmission parameters based on the feedback.
Claims 2-13, 15-19 are also rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. patent application ‘936.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the 20claimed 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.
4. Claims 1-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad et al. (US 2024/0243862, hereinafter Saad) in view of Liu et al. (US 2012/0120839, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Saad discloses a first access point (AP) (para 0002; second AP), comprising:
a processing system (para 0056; and 0060; a processor)
that includes processor circuitry and memory
circuitry that stores code (para 0060; memory to store the instructions), the processing system configured to cause the first AP to:
transmit a null data packet announcement (para 0002; and 0111; and 0169; AP sends a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame), wherein the null data packet announcement indicates a sounding occasion (para 0103-0104; 0107; 0171; 0203; NDPA announces that NDP sounding follows the sounding sequence/TXOP) and one or more common parameters for a first null data packet transmission for a sounding (para 0113; 0119; 0125; 0167; and 0234; parameters for all SPs and STAs which may use the same resources during transmission – BW allocation. Nt; number of LTFs ); and receiving a sounding feedback associated with the first null data packet transmission during the sounding occasion (0105; and 0107; the AP transmits an NDP to the STA with a preamble that allows the STA to measure its own channel and send Channel State Information (CSI) feedback to the AP during the sounding sequence).
Saad does not explicitly disclose that receiving the sounding feedback includes monitoring of the sounding feedback.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses that receiving the sounding feedback includes monitoring of the sounding feedback (para 0029-0030; monitoring and transmitting sounding feedback). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saad’s method/system by having Liu’s disclosure in order to improve the quality of service by dynamically adjusting transmission parameters based on the feedback.
Regarding claims 2, and 15, Saad discloses wherein the null data packet
announcement comprises a null data packet announcement variant subfield, a sounding
dialog token number subfield and at least a first station information field and a second
station information field (para 0111; 0154; 0200; 0201; 0229 and 0258), wherein the first station information field indicates for a second AP to perform a joint sounding procedure or a sequential sounding procedure (para 0107; 0226; sequential sounding and joint sounding), wherein the second station information field indicates a station associated with the joint sounding procedure or the sequential sounding procedure for providing a sounding feedback (para 0170).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Saad discloses that the null data packet
announcement variant subfield may be set to 3 to indicate an extremely high throughput
(EHT) null data packet announcement frame (para 0196-0198).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Saad discloses wherein at least one of the sounding
dialog token number subfield being set to a certain value or a subfield within the
sounding dialog token number subfield being set to a certain value indicates the first
station information field carries information for the second AP (para 0111; 0149-0150; and 0196; the Sounding Dialog Token field in the NDPA frame may include a NDPA Frame Variant subframe and Sounding Dialog Token Number. The NDPA Frame Variant subframe may be 3 bits. The Sounding Dialog Token number may be 5 bits).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Saad discloses wherein an association identifier
(AID11) subfield in the first station information field being set to a certain value
indicates the first station information field carries information for the second AP (para 0113, 0151-0152, 0156; 0175 and 0233).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Saad discloses wherein at least one of the sounding
dialog token number subfield being set to a certain value (para 0111), a subfield within the sounding dialog token number subfield being set to a certain value (para 0149), an association identifier (AID) subfield in the first station information field being set to a certain value (para 0150), or a coordinated sounding type subfield in the first station information field being set to a certain value indicates the joint sounding procedure or the sequential sounding procedure (para 0111; 0149-0150; and 0196; the Sounding Dialog Token field in the NDPA frame may include a NDPA Frame Variant subframe and Sounding Dialog Token Number. The NDPA Frame Variant subframe may be 3 bits. The Sounding Dialog Token number may be 5 bits).
Regarding claim 7, Saad discloses wherein the first station information field
comprises a subfield to indicate an identifier of the second AP (para 0002; AID).
Regarding claim 8, Saad discloses wherein the subfield to indicate the
identifier of the second AP is an association identifier (AID) subfield in the first station
information field (para 0002; 0113; 0116-0117; AID).
Regarding claim 9, Saad discloses wherein the null data packet
announcement comprises a third station information field, wherein the third station
information field comprises a subfield with an association identifier (AID11) subfield to
indicate an identifier of the second AP (para 0151-0152; and 0156; Multi-APs).
Regarding claim 10, Saad discloses The first AP of claim 1, wherein the null data packet announcement comprises at least two of a subfield to indicate at least one of a starting stream index for a second AP in a null data packet (para 0252; and 0271-0272), a subfield to indicate a quantity of spatial streams for the first AP in a null data packet (para 0101), a subfield to indicate a quantity of spatial streams for a second AP in a null data packet, or a total quantity of spatial streams in a null data packet (para 0106).
Regarding claim 11, Saad discloses wherein the null data packet
announcement comprises a subfield to indicate a quantity of stations associated to the
first AP that are targeted to provide beamforming feedback in a null data packet (para 0003; 0042; and 0151).
Regarding claim 13, Saad discloses wherein the null data packet
announcement comprises at least one of a subfield to indicate a bandwidth associated
with a null data packet, a subfield to indicate a punctured channel information
associated with the null data packet, one or more subfields to indicate a guard interval
associated with the null data packet and a long training field (LTF) symbol duration
associated with the null data packet (para 0108; 0121), a subfield to indicate a transmission opportunity duration associated with the null data packet (para 0111), a subfield to indicate transmission error vector magnitude information associated with the null data packet, a subfield to indicate BSS color (0121), or a subfield to indicate a minimum sounding quantity of spatial streams capability for a quantity of stations associated to the first AP that are targeted to provide beamforming feedback in a null data packet.
Regarding claim 20, Saad discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to perform the method steps of claim 1 (para 0060 and 0285).
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad/Liu in view of
Hedayat et al. (US 2016/0233932, hereinafter Hedayat).
Regarding claim 12, Saad/Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the null data packet announcement comprises a subfield to indicate a quantity of columns of beamforming feedback matrices for each of the quantity of stations associated to the first AP that are targeted to provide beamforming feedback in a null data packet.
In an analogous art, Hedayat discloses wherein the null data packet announcement comprises a subfield to indicate a quantity of columns of beamforming feedback matrices for each of the quantity of stations associated to the first AP that are targeted to provide beamforming feedback in a null data packet (para 0035; 0037; 0039; 0052; and 0090). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saad/Liu’s method/system by having Hedayat’s disclosure in order to improve the efficiency of the communication system.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMINA CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-7102. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday (7:30 a.m. to 5.00p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMINA F CHOUDHRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
