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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Lee et al. for the "LONG TRAINING FIELD SEQUENCE CONSTRUCTION" filed 11/18/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of 18/306,354 filed 04/25/2023 now U.S. Patent #12,184,463 which is a Continuation of 17/169,291 filed 02/05/2021 now U.S. Patent #11,677,600 which is a Continuation of 16/405,933 filed 05/07/2019 now U.S. Patent #10,945,158 which is a Continuation of 15,452,567 filed 03/07/2017 now U.S. Patent #10,327,172 which is a Continuation of 15/079,007 filed 03/23/2016 now U.S. Patent #9,628,310 which Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62264812 filed 12/08/2015, from Provisional Application 62250944 filed 11/04/2015, from Provisional Application 62236815 filed 10/02/2015, from Provisional Application 62214139 filed 09/03/2015, from Provisional Application 62214156 filed 09/03/2015, from Provisional Application 62157849 filed 05/06/2015, and from Provisional Application 62138302 filed 03/25/2015. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The status of the related application USSN#18/306,354 filed 04/25/2023 noted on page 1, paragraph [0001] needs to be updated. This application is now US Patent#12,184,463. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
Invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the
manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
6. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US#10,135,590) in view of Cao et al. (US#10,320,551).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose a novel system and apparatus for constructing a long training field (LTF) sequence as a part of transmission preamble for Very High Throughput (VHT) wireless systems, according to the essential features of the claims. Park et al. (US#10,135,590) disclose an apparatus for facilitating wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (see Fig. 17 for the structure of the devices include processors, memories), configured to: select, based on a channel bandwidth of a frame, a high efficiency long training field (HE-LTF) sequence for the frame (see Fig. 16; Col. 20, line 42 to Col. 21, line 27:configuring and transmitting the HE-LTF sequences); wherein the channel bandwidth is divided into a plurality of resource units (RUs), wherein each RU in a set of RUs is allocated to a station (STA) in a set of STAs (Figs. 4-7; Col. 2, line 10 to Col. 3, line 45 and Col. 6, line 18 to Col. 7, line 58: RUs corresponding to different frequency resources are allocated to the user to perform uplink/downlink communication), wherein the HE-LTF sequence is associated with the allocated RUs ( ); select an HE-LTF transmission mode from one of a 4x HE-LTF mode, a 2x HE-LTF mode, and a 1x HE-LTF mode (Fig. 4; Col. 6, lines 20-24: the resources may be allocated by the unit of the RU illustrated with respect to the HE-STF, the HE-LTF, and the data field); transmit, to the set of STAs, the HE-LTF sequence; and transmit, to the set of STAs, a set of additional fields of the frame using the set of allocated RUs and a set of unallocated RUs (Figs. 11 & 13-15; Col. 12, line 59 to Col. 13, line 18: The HE-LTF sequence for the transmission of 20 MHz, 40Mhz, 80MHz. The RU that is being indicated by the RU Allocation field 1120 corresponds to the RU shown in Figs. 4-6), wherein the set of additional fields includes a legacy short training field (L-STF), a legacy long training field (L-LTF), a legacy signaling field (L-SIG), a high efficiency signaling A field (HE-SIG-A), and a high efficiency short training field (HE-STF)(Figs. 3, 7; Col. 6, lines 7-15: the HE-PPDU according to an IEEE 802.11ax standard for multiple users (MUs) may include a legacy-short training field (L-STF), a legacy-long training field (L-LTF), a legacy-signal (L-SIG), a high efficiency-signal A (HE-SIG A), a high efficiency-signal-B (HE-SIG B), a high efficiency-short training field (HE-STF), a high efficiency-long training field (HE-LTF) ), wherein the one or more processors transmits the HE-LTF sequence with one or more allocated RUs and none of the unallocated RUs.(Fig. 16; Col. 20, lines 46-64).
Although Park et al. references does not disclose expressly a set of unallocated RUs in the bandwidth of the frame is not allocated to a station for the frame. However, Park et al. discloses in Figs. 4-6 the frame diagrams illustrated the layout of resource units (RUs) used in a band of 20 MHz, 40MHz, 80MHz, in which multiple null subcarriers (the unallocated RUs of the UL PPDU), DC tones, guard tones, and the like are inserted during arranging the RUs (Col. 6, line 18 to Col. 7, line 58). In the same field of endeavor, Cao et al. (US#10,320,551) teaches in Figs. 3A,B the layout of an example of a frame 301/351 for downlink OFDMA based continuous/non-continuous channel bonding on an 80 MHz operational channel, in which the frame 301 includes null subcarriers corresponding to the busy channel 304, e.g., CH4, to minimize interference to the busy channel 304. In some implementations, the AP can signal null subcarrier allocations in a downlink resource allocation (Col. 9, line 28 to Col. 10, line 67: the unallocated subcarriers of the UL PPDU transmission sets to NULL).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Cao’s channel bonding design and signaling in wireless communications into Park’s method and apparatus for configuring LTF in WLAN system with the motivation being to provide a system for long training field sequence construction.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Cao teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above. Park et al. (US#10,135,590) further teach wherein each RU comprises a plurality of data and pilot tones (Park et al.: Figs. 4-6; Col. 6, line 18 to Col. 7, line 58).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Cao teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above. Park et al. (US#10,135,590) further teach wherein each RU comprises one of 106 data/pilot tones, 108 data/pilot tones, 26 data/pilot tones, 52 data/pilot tones, 242 data/pilot tones, or 484 data/pilot tones (Park et al.: Figs. 4-6; Col. 6, lines 48-67).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Cao teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above. Park et al. (US#10,135,590) further teach wherein transmit the frame such that the tones within unallocated RUs in the HE-LTF sequence have a value of zero (Park et al.: Figs. 4-6; Col. 6, line 18 to Col. 7, line 58: A null on the tone means zero energy is populated on this tone).
Regarding claims 5-6, Park in view of Cao teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above. Park et al. (US#10,135,590) further teaches wherein the frame is part of a DL orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) transmission and the apparatus is an AP, wherein the AP determines allocation of RUs to the set of STAs, and wherein the AP modulates symbols associated with one or more data/pilot tones allocated to one or more STAs for transmission (Park et al.: Figs. 1, 4-6; Col. 4, line 52 to Col. 5, line 43 and Col. 6, line 18 to Col. 7, line 58).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Cao teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above. Park et al. (US#10,135,590) further teach wherein the channel bandwidth of the frame is one of 20MHz, 40MHz, 80MHz, 160MHz, or 80+80MHz (Park et al.: Fig. 7; Col. 7; lines 32-52: a bandwidth field indicating at least one of 20, 40, 80, 160 and 80+80 MHz).
Regarding claims 9-13, 15, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1-6, 8 examined above. Therefore, claims 9-13, 15 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1-6, 8.
Regarding claims 16-20, 22, these claims differ from claims of Park et al. (US#10,135,590) in view of Cao et al. (US#10,320,551) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-6, 8 examined above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Park in view of Cao for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claims with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for providing transmission preamble for Very High Throughput (VHT) wireless systems, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 7, 14, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
8. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the frame is part of an uplink orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) transmission and the apparatus is a non-access point station (non-AP STA), and wherein the set of STAs includes an AP that sets the channel bandwidth of the frame, as specifically recited in the claims.
Double Patenting
9. A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain : patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention" in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
10. 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. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Fongi, 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© may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
11. Claims 1-22 of the present application Serial No. 18/950,558 (hereinafter Application ‘558 rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent #12,184,463 (hereinafter ‘463), claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent #11,677,600 (hereinafter ‘600), claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent #10,945,158 (hereinafter ‘158) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The claims are identical and they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent, since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are equivalent in scope and embodiment. The language of the two claims is substantially identical and is equivalent in functioning. All of the structural elements of the patent claims are present in the pending claims, defined with either identical or equivalent language. Additionally, the functional language, scope and embodiment reflect identical operation, purpose, application, and environment.
With respect to the specific limitations, claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent ‘463, claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent’ 600, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent ‘158 are equivalent to the combination of pending claims 1-22 of Application ‘558 for Long Training Field (LTF) sequence construction as a part of transmission preamble for Very High Throughput (VHT) in Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN). Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Park et al. (US#10,187,893) show the methods and apparatus for configuring LTF in wireless LAN system.
The Liu et al. (US#10,341,067) show the transmission device and method for transmitting data frame.
The Wang et al. (US#10,219,274) show channel bonding operations in wireless comm.
The Yu et al. (US#10,243,641) show the frame transmitting/receiving method.
The Yu et al. (US#9,553,699) show the frame transmitting/receiving method.
The Seok (US#2016/0007342) show physical layer PPU format in HE WLAN.
The Van Nee et al. (US#8,917,785) show the constructing VHT-LTF sequences.
The Chen et al. (US#9,912,452) show the HE signal field encoding structure.
The Li et al. (US#10,033,565) show low PAPR LTF sequences.
13. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
15. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
09/24/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
