Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(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-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 43-50 of parent Application No. 13525220. Although the claims at issue are identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are same variants of each other.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of parent Application No. 16383613. Although the claims at issue are identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are same variants of each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-3, is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Liu US 20110134816.
A method for wireless communication, the method comprising:
transmitting a Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) to a plurality of stations (Liu: fig. 4 – PPDU), wherein the PPDU comprises:
a first signal field including a first length information indicating a maximum length among a plurality of data fields in the PPDU (Liu: fig. 4, unit 410 - a VHT-SIG 410 includes information that indicates a remaining duration of the PHY frame 401 (e.g. from the end of the VHT-SIGs 410 to the end of a PPDU));
a second signal field including individual length information for each of the plurality of data fields (Liu: fig. 11, unit 1105 [0083] a steered VHT-SIG field 1105 includes the length (e.g., number of octets, or number of 4-octets) of useful data in a corresponding PSDU); and
the plurality of data fields including a first data field for a first station and a second data field for a second station (Liu: fig. 4, unit 415a-415c - A-MPDUs 415a-c),
wherein a first padding field is added subsequent to the first data field (Liu: fig. 4, unit 420-425 - inserts PHY padding 425a, 425b, 425c after an end of the A-MPDU 415a-c),
wherein a second padding field is added subsequent to the second data field (Liu: fig. 4, unit 420-425 - inserts PHY padding 425a, 425b, 425c after an end of the A-MPDU 415a-c), and
wherein a combined length of the first data field and the first padding field equals the first length information (Liu: fig. 4, unit 410 - a VHT-SIG 410 = A-MPDU 415a + PHY Pad425a/tail430a).
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving acknowledgement frames from the plurality of stations in response to the PPDU during a same time period (Liu: fig. 7, unit - acknowledgement response(s)).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the PPDU further comprises: a training field between the first signal field and the second signal field (Liu: fig. 8, VHT-TFs between VHT-SIG A unit 815a & VHT-SIG B unit 815b); and a service field preceding the plurality of data fields, wherein the service field includes scrambling initialization information (Liu: fig. 8 [0081], service filed before the VHT A-MPDU field).
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 (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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu US 20110134816 in view of Erceg US 20140078966
4. The method of claim 1, wherein: the first signal field further includes indication information for identifying the PPDU as a multi-user PPDU (Liu: [0081] fig. 9, multi-user frame), and the second signal field further includes user identification information for each of the plurality of stations (Erceg: [0126-0127, 0136] (e.g., SIG B, including user-specific information))
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Liu’s invention in order generate a first portion of the distributed SIG field that includes information that may be used by multiple of the wireless communication devices (e.g., SIG A as first signal filed), while a second portion of the distributed SIG field (e.g., SIG B as second signal field) is targeted for and processed only by those wireless communication devices for which the second portion of the distributed SIG field (e.g., SIG B) is intended, as taught by Erceg
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the first length information based on a longest data field among the plurality of data fields; and calculating lengths of padding fields for remaining data fields to match the first length information (Liu: [0009, 0036, 0055] longest VHT-Data segments and Note that shorter VHT-Data segments align with the length of the longest VHT-Data segment by including padding).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein: first tail bits are added subsequent to the first padding field, second tail bits are added subsequent to the second padding field, and a length of the first tail bits equals a length of the second tail bits (Liu: fig. 4, unit 430a-430c).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the PPDU comprises: transmitting the first signal field during a first time period (Liu: fig. 8a - Transmitted before a VHT A-MPDU, a VHT-SIG 815a); transmitting the second signal field during a second time period subsequent to the first time period (Liu: fig. 8a - Transmitted after the VHT-SIG B unit 815b after a VHT-SIG A); and transmitting the plurality of data fields simultaneously during a third time period subsequent to the second time period (Liu: fig. 8a - Transmitted a multi VHT A-MPDU data after the VHT-SIG 815a & 815b).
Remark:
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is (571) 270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski, can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights