DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,337 (herein called “the ’337 Patent”) in view of Park et al (US 2017/0280383) in view of Kim et al (US 2018/0263047) in view of Merlin et al (US 2015/0131508).
Regarding claim 1: claim 1 of the ’337 Patent discloses an information processing device comprising:
control circuitry configured to control wireless communication circuitry of a first device configured as a wireless LAN access point to (see 36:39-42 of the ’337 Patent):
receive first frames that are transmitted from a plurality of devices configured as wireless LAN stations, each of the first frames including information indicating that a respective one of the plurality of devices has a multiplexing capability (see 36:43-46 of the ’337 Patent),
transmit a beacon frame to the plurality of devices (see 36:47-49 of the ’337 Patent; “transmitted after a beacon” discloses transmitting a beacon (first)),
after transmitting the beacon frame, transmit a second frame to the plurality of devices (see 36:47-49 of the ’337 Patent), wherein the second frame includes information comprises:
information of an uplink multiplexing method to be used by the plurality of devices to transmit third frames to the first device (see 36:64-67 of the ’337 Patent),
information indicating a presence of downlink data buffered in the first device for further transmission (see 36:53-56 of the ’337 Patent),
wherein the information of the uplink multiplexing method includes device specific information related to a position in the frequency domain and a frequency bandwidth to be used for the multiplexed transmission of the third frames (see 37:1-10 of the ’337 Patent),
wherein second frame indicates that the plurality of devices are to shift from a functional suspension state to a data receivable state (see 37:2-7 of the ’337 Patent; the UEs transition from the functional suspension state to a data receivable state in response to receiving the control data),
receive the multiplexed third frames from the plurality of devices in accordance with the information included in the second frame (see 37:8-10 of the ’337 Patent),
in response to receiving the multiplexed third frames, transmit a fourth frame to the plurality of devices (see 37:11-13 of the ’337 Patent).
Claim 1 of the ’337 Patent does not explicitly disclose the limitations wherein the multiplexed third frames are transmitted by the plurality of devices a Short Inter Frame Space (SIFS) after reception of the second frame by the plurality of devices without using a collision avoidance algorithm. However, Park discloses these limitations throughout. See the SIFS in Figure 7; the PS-Polls are transmitted in the allocated channels/frequencies and do not use a collision avoidance algorithm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the ’337 Patent to transmit the third frames a SIFS after the reception of the second frame without using a collision avoidance algorithm, as suggested by Park. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the latency required to exchange data between the network and the STAs as suggested by Park.
Claim 1 of the ’337 Patent also does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the information of the second frame comprises information related to a transmission power to be used by the plurality of devices to transmit the multiplexed third frames. However, Kim discloses that a “trigger frame 800 may further include information on the transmission power of the UL MU PPDU” (see [0147], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claim 1 of the ’337 Patent to include a transmission power to be used for the third frames (PS-Polls) as suggested by Kim. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to adjust the power used by the STAs based on current channel conditions.
Claim 1 of the ’337 Patent also does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the fourth frame conveys concatenated acknowledgements for the plurality of devices, and includes: information in a receiver address field that indicates that the fourth frame is addressed to the plurality of devices, association identifiers (AIDs) for the plurality of devices, and acknowledgements for the multiplexed third frames received from the plurality of devices. However, Merlin discloses analogous art that includes multiplexing PS-Polls from a plurality of STAs (see 604a, 604b, 607a, and 607b of Figure 6, for example). Further, Merlin discloses that prior to sending the downlink data to the STAs (in step 608), the AP sends acknowledgement messages (ACKs 613, for example) to indicate receipt of the respective PS-Polls. These ACK frames are disclosed in many of the Figures of Merlin. As indicated in [0057], the ACK frame may be a “multicast ACK frame”, which clearly includes an address field (the multicast address) that indicates that the fourth frame (the ACK frame) is addressed to the plurality of STAs. Further, the ACK frames clearly indicate to the transmitting STAs that the corresponding PS-Polls were successfully received by the AP and that the corresponding downlink data is forthcoming. This requires that the STAs to which the PS-Polls correspond are indicated in the ACK frame. That is, the ACK frame must distinguish between the case where all PS-Polls have been successfully received and the case where only a subset of the transmitted PS-Polls have been received. It would have been obvious to use the AID of Park when combining claim 1 of the ’337 Patent and Merlin. Further, the ACK frames clearly also include information acknowledging the received frames (the multiplexed third/PS-Poll frames). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claim 1 of the ’337 Patent to include the ACK frames as suggested by Merlin and as described above. The rationale for doing so would have been to conserve power by ensuring that the STA’s PS-Poll has been successfully received prior to the STA decoding the multiplexed downlink data from the AP.
Regarding claim 8: claim 12 of the ’337 Patent, when modified as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above, similarly renders claim 8 obvious. Claim 8 is therefore similarly rejected over obviousness double patenting.
Regarding claim 9: claim 15 of the ’337 Patent, when modified as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above, similarly renders claim 9 obvious. Claim 9 is therefore similarly rejected over obviousness double patenting.
Regarding claim 16: claim 17 of the ’337 Patent, when modified as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above, similarly renders claim 16 obvious. Claim 16 is therefore similarly rejected over obviousness double patenting.
Regarding claim 3: claim 1 of the ’337 Patent, modified as above, discloses the claim limitations in 36:50-52 of the ’337 Patent.
Regarding claim 4: claim 1 of the ’337 Patent, modified as above, discloses the claim limitations in 36:50-52 of the ’337 Patent.
Regarding claim 5: claim 1 of the ’337 Patent, modified as above, discloses the claim limitations in 36:57-62 of the ’337 Patent.
Regarding claim 6: claim 1 of the ’337 Patent, modified as above, discloses the claim limitations in 37:2-7 of the ’337 Patent.
Regarding claim 11: claim 15 of the ’337 Patent, modified as above, discloses the claim limitations in 39:4-6 of the ’337 Patent.
Regarding claim 12: claim 15 of the ’337 Patent, modified as above, discloses the claim limitations in 39:4-6 of the ’337 Patent.
Regarding claim 13: claim 15 of the ’337 Patent, modified as above, discloses the claim limitations in 39:11-16 of the ’337 Patent.
Regarding claim 14: claim 15 of the ’337 Patent, modified as above, discloses the claim limitations in 39:22-24 of the ’337 Patent.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At the end of claims 9 and 16, the phrase “to obtain a device-specific fourth frame” should be changed to something such as “to obtain a device-specific fifth frame”. This is to eliminate any confusion as to the distinction between the received fourth frame (earlier in claim 9) and the device-specific fourth frame.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 7 and 15 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.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the limitation “the additional downlink data” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution, claims 7 and 15 are interpreted as depending on claims 2 and 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2: the original disclosure does not appear to have support for the limitations “after transmitting the multiplexed downlink data to the plurality of devices, receive, from an upper layer, additional downlink data instructing the plurality of devices to shift from the data receivable state to the functional suspension state, and transmit the additional downlink data to the plurality of devices”. The original disclosure includes numerous examples of the STAs determining to transition or shift from the data receivable state back to the functional suspension state (such as when the STA has received all buffered data). However, the original disclosure does not appear to disclose such a shift/transition in response to “additional downlink data instructing the plurality of devices” received from the network to perform such a shift/transition. The original disclosure also does not appear to disclose that the “additional downlink data instructing the plurality of devices to shift…” is received “from an upper layer”.
Regarding claim 7: the original disclosure does not appear to have support for the limitations “in response to the additional downlink data, the control circuitry controls the wireless communication circuitry of the first device to receive multiplexed fifth frames indicating that the plurality of devices have shifted from the data receivable state to the functional suspension state”. The original disclosure includes numerous examples of the STAs determining to transition or shift from the data receivable state back to the functional suspension state (such as when the STA has received all buffered data). However, the original disclosure does not appear to disclose such a shift/transition in response to “the additional downlink data” or that the STAs send frames “indicating” that the STAs have performed such a shift/transition.
Regarding claim 10: the original disclosure does not appear to have support for the limitations “receiving additional downlink data instructing the first device to shift from the data receivable state to the functional suspension state”. The original disclosure includes numerous examples of the STAs determining to transition or shift from the data receivable state back to the functional suspension state (such as when the STA has received all buffered data). However, the original disclosure does not appear to disclose such a shift/transition in response to “additional downlink data instructing the first device to shift…” received from the network to perform such a shift/transition.
Regarding claim 15: the original disclosure does not appear to have support for the limitations “in response to the additional downlink data, the control circuitry controls the wireless communication circuitry of the first device to transmit a multiplexed fifth frame indicating that the first device has shifted from the data receivable state to the functional suspension state”. The original disclosure includes numerous examples of the STAs determining to transition or shift from the data receivable state back to the functional suspension state (such as when the STA has received all buffered data). However, the original disclosure does not appear to disclose such a shift/transition in response to “the additional downlink data” or that the STAs send frames “indicating” that the STAs have performed such a shift/transition.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2017/0280383) in view of Kim et al (US 2018/0263047) in view of Merlin et al (US 2015/0131508).
Regarding claim 1: Park discloses an information processing device comprising:
control circuitry configured to control wireless communication circuitry of a first device configured as a wireless LAN access point to (disclosed throughout; see the processor 2110 of Figure 21, for example):
transmit a beacon frame to the plurality of devices (disclosed throughout; see the TIM beacon 700 of Figure 7, for example),
after transmitting the beacon frame, transmit a second frame to the plurality of devices (disclosed throughout; see the PS-poll trigger frame 710 of Figure 7, for example),
wherein the second frame includes information comprises:
information of an uplink multiplexing method to be used by the plurality of devices to transmit third frames to the first device (see the UL MU resource information transmitted as part of the PS-poll trigger frame as described in [0118], for example; further, as indicated in many of the Figures (including Figure 7), the UL MU PS-Polls are transmitted using one of two methods (spatial domain or frequency domain); as indicated in [0094]-[0095], these methods are called the “UL MU OFDMA transmission method” (frequency) and “UL MU MIMO transmission method” (spatial); further, as indicated in [0103], for example, “when a plurality of PS-poll frames…are transmitted based on UL MU OFDMA transmission, UL MU resource information may include information on a channel and/or a sub-channel (sub-band) for transmission of a plurality of PS-poll frames …When a plurality of PS-poll frames…are transmitted based on UL MU MIMO transmission, UL MU resource information may include space-time stream (or spatial stream) for transmission of a plurality of PS-poll frames…”; thus, the UL MU resource information includes information specifying the uplink multiplexing method (sub-channel if UL MU OFDMA/frequency multiplexing method and spatial stream if UL MU MIMO/spatial multiplexing method)), and
information indicating a presence of downlink data buffered in the first device for further transmission (see the AIDs (association identifiers) transmitted as part of the PS-poll trigger frame as described in [0118], for example; this frame triggers the indicated UEs that downlink data (DL MU data frame 740) is available and that they should transmit PS-Polls to initiate the downlink transmission),
wherein the information of the uplink multiplexing method includes device specific information related to a position in the frequency domain and a frequency bandwidth to be used for the multiplexed transmission of the third frames (as indicated in [0103], for example, “when a plurality of PS-poll frames…are transmitted based on UL MU OFDMA transmission, UL MU resource information may include information on a channel and/or a sub-channel (sub-band) for transmission of a plurality of PS-poll frames”; as this refers to the UL MU OFDMA/frequency multiplexing method, this clearly indicates the location in frequency to be used by each of the STAs to enable them to transmit in the same time slot; this clearly indicates the location (position) and size (bandwidth) in frequency allocated to each STA/PS-Poll frame),
wherein second frame indicates that the plurality of devices are to shift from a functional suspension state to a data receivable state (disclosed throughout; see Figure 7, and the description in [0114]-[0122], the PS-Poll trigger frame indicates to the STAs (via the AID information) to transmit PS-Polls in order to receive pending downlink data; to transmit the PS-Polls and receive the downlink data, the STAs move to an awake state (interpreted as a data receivable state) from a doze state (interpreted as a functional suspension state); see also [0129], for example, which indicates “the STA receiving indication of presence of the pending downlink data based on the TIM element of the beacon frame 800 may receive the beacon frame 800, and may then maintain a doze state before transmission of the PS-poll trigger frame 810, and may receive the PS-poll trigger frame 810 transmitted by the AP where the doze state is switched to the awake state at the transmission time point of the PS-poll trigger frame 810”),
receive the multiplexed third frames from the plurality of devices in accordance with the information included in the second frame (disclosed throughout; see PS-Polls 720 and 730 of Figure 7, for example),
wherein the multiplexed third frames are transmitted by the plurality of devices a Short Inter Frame Space (SIFS) after reception of the second frame by the plurality of devices without using a collision avoidance algorithm (disclosed throughout; see the SIFS in Figure 7; the PS-Polls are transmitted in the allocated channels/frequencies and do not use a collision avoidance algorithm),
in response to receiving the multiplexed third frames, transmit a fourth frame to the plurality of devices (see at least the DL MU data frame 740 of Figure 7, for example, which is sent based on the PS-Polls as indicated in [0120] (“…transmit a plurality of downlink data frames 740 based on PS-poll frames 720 and 730…”)).
Park does not explicitly disclose the limitation of receive first frames that are transmitted from a plurality of devices configured as wireless LAN stations, each of the first frames including information indicating that a respective one of the plurality of devices has a multiplexing capability. However, Park does disclose that STAs transmit as association request frame that includes information on the capability of the STA (“[t]he transmitted association request frame 330 contains information on the capability of the non-AP STA” (see [0066], for example). Further, as indicated in [0092] and [0093], the STAs may include support for “a transmission method based on orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA)” and “may support uplink multi-user (UL MU) transmission”. To the extent that Park does not explicitly disclose that the STA transmits the OFDMA and UL MU support in the capability information of the association request, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this information in a capability transmission to the network. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure that the network and STAs are using the most efficient communication techniques supported by the STAs (such as simultaneous transmission of PS-Polls) by exchanging the features supported by each side.
Park does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the information of the second frame comprises information related to a transmission power to be used by the plurality of devices to transmit the multiplexed third frames. However, Kim discloses that a “trigger frame 800 may further include information on the transmission power of the UL MU PPDU” (see [0147], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Park to include a transmission power to be used for the third frames (PS-Polls) as suggested by Kim. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to adjust the power used by the STAs based on current channel conditions.
Park, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the fourth frame conveys concatenated acknowledgements for the plurality of devices, and includes: information in a receiver address field that indicates that the fourth frame is addressed to the plurality of devices, association identifiers (AIDs) for the plurality of devices, and acknowledgements for the multiplexed third frames received from the plurality of devices. However, Merlin discloses analogous art that includes multiplexing PS-Polls from a plurality of STAs (see 604a, 604b, 607a, and 607b of Figure 6, for example). Further, Merlin discloses that prior to sending the downlink data to the STAs (in step 608), the AP sends acknowledgement messages (ACKs 613, for example) to indicate receipt of the respective PS-Polls. These ACK frames are disclosed in many of the Figures of Merlin. As indicated in [0057], the ACK frame may be a “multicast ACK frame”, which clearly includes an address field (the multicast address) that indicates that the fourth frame (the ACK frame) is addressed to the plurality of STAs. Further, the ACK frames clearly indicate to the transmitting STAs that the corresponding PS-Polls were successfully received by the AP and that the corresponding downlink data is forthcoming. This requires that the STAs to which the PS-Polls correspond are indicated in the ACK frame. That is, the ACK frame must distinguish between the case where all PS-Polls have been successfully received and the case where only a subset of the transmitted PS-Polls have been received. It would have been obvious to use the AID of Park when combining Park, modified, and Merlin. Further, the ACK frames clearly also include information acknowledging the received frames (the multiplexed third/PS-Poll frames). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Park, modified, to include the ACK frames as suggested by Merlin and as described above. The rationale for doing so would have been to conserve power by ensuring that the STA’s PS-Poll has been successfully received prior to the STA decoding the multiplexed downlink data from the AP.
Regarding claim 8: the above combination of Park, Kim, and Merlin discloses the limitations of the method of claim 8 for reasons similar to those disclosed above in claim 1 which includes analogous functionality performed by a device.
Regarding claim 9: Park discloses an information processing device comprising:
control circuitry configured to control wireless communication circuitry of a first device configured as a wireless LAN station to perform a process, the first device being one of a plurality of first devices configured as wireless LAN stations, the process comprising (disclosed throughout; see the processor 2160 of Figure 21, for example):
receiving a beacon frame from the second device (disclosed throughout; see the TIM beacon 700 of Figure 7, for example);
after receiving the beacon frame, receiving a second frame from the second device (disclosed throughout; see the PS-poll trigger frame 710 of Figure 7, for example),
wherein the second frame includes information comprises:
information of an uplink multiplexing method to be used by the first device to transmit a third frame to the second device, the third frame to be multiplexed with other third frames transmitted by other first devices of the plurality of first devices (see the UL MU resource information transmitted as part of the PS-poll trigger frame as described in [0118], for example; further, as indicated in many of the Figures (including Figure 7), the UL MU PS-Polls are transmitted using one of two methods (spatial domain or frequency domain); as indicated in [0094]-[0095], these methods are called the “UL MU OFDMA transmission method” (frequency) and “UL MU MIMO transmission method” (spatial); further, as indicated in [0103], for example, “when a plurality of PS-poll frames…are transmitted based on UL MU OFDMA transmission, UL MU resource information may include information on a channel and/or a sub-channel (sub-band) for transmission of a plurality of PS-poll frames …When a plurality of PS-poll frames…are transmitted based on UL MU MIMO transmission, UL MU resource information may include space-time stream (or spatial stream) for transmission of a plurality of PS-poll frames…”; thus, the UL MU resource information includes information specifying the uplink multiplexing method (sub-channel if UL MU OFDMA/frequency multiplexing method and spatial stream if UL MU MIMO/spatial multiplexing method)), and
information indicating a presence of downlink data buffered in the second device for further transmission (see the AIDs (association identifiers) transmitted as part of the PS-poll trigger frame as described in [0118], for example; this frame triggers the indicated UEs that downlink data (DL MU data frame 740) is available and that they should transmit PS-Polls to initiate the downlink transmission),
wherein the information of the uplink multiplexing method includes device specific information related to a position in the frequency domain and a frequency bandwidth to be used for the transmission of the third frame (as indicated in [0103], for example, “when a plurality of PS-poll frames…are transmitted based on UL MU OFDMA transmission, UL MU resource information may include information on a channel and/or a sub-channel (sub-band) for transmission of a plurality of PS-poll frames”; as this refers to the UL MU OFDMA/frequency multiplexing method, this clearly indicates the location in frequency to be used by each of the STAs to enable them to transmit in the same time slot; this clearly indicates the location (position) and size (bandwidth) in frequency allocated to each STA/PS-Poll frame), and
wherein second frame indicates that the first device is to shift from a functional suspension state to a data receivable state (disclosed throughout; see Figure 7, and the description in [0114]-[0122], the PS-Poll trigger frame indicates to the STAs (via the AID information) to transmit PS-Polls in order to receive pending downlink data; to transmit the PS-Polls and receive the downlink data, the STAs move to an awake state (interpreted as a data receivable state) from a doze state (interpreted as a functional suspension state); see also [0129], for example, which indicates “the STA receiving indication of presence of the pending downlink data based on the TIM element of the beacon frame 800 may receive the beacon frame 800, and may then maintain a doze state before transmission of the PS-poll trigger frame 810, and may receive the PS-poll trigger frame 810 transmitted by the AP where the doze state is switched to the awake state at the transmission time point of the PS-poll trigger frame 810”);
transmitting the third frame to the second device in accordance with the information included in the second frame (disclosed throughout; see PS-Polls 720 and 730 of Figure 7, for example),
wherein the third frame is transmitted a Short Inter Frame Space (SIFS) after reception of the second frame without using a collision avoidance algorithm (disclosed throughout; see the SIFS in Figure 7; the PS-Polls are transmitted in the allocated channels/frequencies and do not use a collision avoidance algorithm);
in response to transmitting the third frames, receiving a fourth frame from the second device (see at least the DL MU data frame 740 of Figure 7, for example, which is sent based on the PS-Polls as indicated in [0120] (“…transmit a plurality of downlink data frames 740 based on PS-poll frames 720 and 730…”)); and
receiving multiplexed downlink data using a downlink multiplexing method, and demultiplex the multiplexed downlink data to obtain a device- specific fourth frame (disclosed throughout; see element 740 of Figure 7 and [0120], for example).
Park does not explicitly disclose the limitation of transmitting a first frame to a second device configured as wireless LAN access point, the first frame including information indicating that a respective one of the plurality of devices has a multiplexing capability. However, Park does disclose that STAs transmit as association request frame that includes information on the capability of the STA (“[t]he transmitted association request frame 330 contains information on the capability of the non-AP STA” (see [0066], for example). Further, as indicated in [0092] and [0093], the STAs may include support for “a transmission method based on orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA)” and “may support uplink multi-user (UL MU) transmission”. To the extent that Park does not explicitly disclose that the STA transmits the OFDMA and UL MU support in the capability information of the association request, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this information in a capability transmission to the network. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure that the network and STAs are using the most efficient communication techniques supported by the STAs (such as simultaneous transmission of PS-Polls) by exchanging the features supported by each side.
Park does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the information of the second frame comprises information related to a transmission power to be used by the first device to transmit the third frame. However, Kim discloses that a “trigger frame 800 may further include information on the transmission power of the UL MU PPDU” (see [0147], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Park to include a transmission power to be used for the third frames (PS-Polls) as suggested by Kim. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to adjust the power used by the STAs based on current channel conditions.
Park, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the fourth frame conveys concatenated acknowledgements for the plurality of first devices, and includes: information in a receiver address field that indicates that the fourth frame is addressed to the plurality of first devices, association identifiers (AIDs) for the plurality of first devices, and acknowledgements for the multiplexed third frames received from the plurality of first devices or the limitation that the multiplexed data is received after receiving the fourth frame. However, Merlin discloses analogous art that includes multiplexing PS-Polls from a plurality of STAs (see 604a, 604b, 607a, and 607b of Figure 6, for example). Further, Merlin discloses that prior to sending the downlink data to the STAs (in step 608), the AP sends acknowledgement messages (ACKs 613, for example) to indicate receipt of the respective PS-Polls. These ACK frames are disclosed in many of the Figures of Merlin. As indicated in [0057], the ACK frame may be a “multicast ACK frame”, which clearly includes an address field (the multicast address) that indicates that the fourth frame (the ACK frame) is addressed to the plurality of STAs. Further, the ACK frames clearly indicate to the transmitting STAs that the corresponding PS-Polls were successfully received by the AP and that the corresponding downlink data is forthcoming. This requires that the STAs to which the PS-Polls correspond are indicated in the ACK frame. That is, the ACK frame must distinguish between the case where all PS-Polls have been successfully received and the case where only a subset of the transmitted PS-Polls have been received. It would have been obvious to use the AID of Park when combining Park, modified, and Merlin. Further, the ACK frames clearly also include information acknowledging the received frames (the multiplexed third/PS-Poll frames). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Park, modified, to include the ACK frames as suggested by Merlin and as described above. The rationale for doing so would have been to conserve power by ensuring that the STA’s PS-Poll has been successfully received prior to the STA decoding the multiplexed downlink data from the AP.
Regarding claim 16: the above combination of Park, Kim, and Merlin discloses the limitations of the method of claim 16 for reasons similar to those disclosed above in claim 9 which includes analogous functionality performed by a device.
Regarding claims 3 and 11: Park, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 9 as indicated above. Park, as modified above, further discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 11 that the information related to the transmission power is device specific (the “information on the transmission power” disclosed in [0147] of Kim is part of the “information for the transmission of a UL MU PPDU 820 performed by each of the plurality of STAs”. That is, the information is specific to each of the STAs).
Regarding claims 4 and 12: Park, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 9 as indicated above. Park, as modified above, further discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 12 that the information indicating the presence of downlink data buffered in the first device is device specific (disclosed throughout; the AIDs (association identifiers) transmitted as part of the PS-poll trigger frame as described in [0118] are specific to each device (i.e. each device corresponds to a particular AID)).
Regarding claims 6 and 14: Park, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 9 as indicated above. Park, modified, further discloses the limitations of claim 6 and 14 that each of the multiplexed third frames includes information indicating that a corresponding one of the plurality of devices has shifted from the functional suspension state to the data receivable state (see the PS-poll frame 720 of Figure 7 as well as [0119]-[0122], which indicates that the AP receives these PS-polls from the STAs (UEs) corresponding to the AIDs in the trigger frame; as disclosed throughout, the STAs receiving the TIMs in the beacons/trigger frames are STAs using a power save function whereby they transition between an “awake state” and a “doze state”; the doze state is interpreted as a functional suspension state and the awake state is interpreted as a data receivable state; the PS-Poll messages tell the AP that the corresponding STA received the TIM and has transitioned from the doze state to the awake state in order to receive the pending downlink data; see [0070]-[0073] and [0161], for example; see also [0129], which indicates that “the doze state is switched to the awake state at the transmission time point of the PS-poll trigger frame”, and in response, the STA transmits the PS-Poll (thus indicating to the AP that the STA has shifted to the awake/data receivable state (from the doze/functional suspension state)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al (US 2018/0167882) discloses a method for transmitting and receiving a frame for multi-user communication.
Adachi (US 2017/0171723) discloses a method for multi-user communication.
Hedayat (US 2016/0330714) discloses a method for multiplexing acknowledgement messages in response to downlink frames.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 September 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights