Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/955,185

HYBRID BANDWIDTH MULTI-USER MULTIPLE-INPUT, MULTIPLE-OUTPUT TRANSMISSION AND SIGNALING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 21, 2024
Examiner
KHAN, AFTAB N
Art Unit
2454
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nxp Usa Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
364 granted / 454 resolved
+22.2% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
469
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 454 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Foreign Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202341079330, filed on 11/22/2023. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2024 & 11/25/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Internet Communication Authorization The examiner recommends filling a written authorization for internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with applicant using internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization. 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 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 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee at al (US pub, 2017/0094664). Referring to claim 10, Lee teaches a method of transmitting signals to different end devices from a wireless device in a communications system (¶ [203], [205], a wireless communication system in which a wireless device transmits frames to multiple stations - STA), the method comprising: transmitting the signals to a first end device from the wireless device using a first bandwidth of a first size (¶ [183], [189], teaches dividing the channel bandwidth into multiple frequency areas and allocating those areas for communication with stations); and transmitting the signals to a second end device from the wireless device using a second bandwidth of a second size (¶ [195],[198], Assigning another frequency area bandwidth portion to another station within the same transmission frame, ¶ [220], [232][234], RU allocation fields and per STA information fields that indicate which frequency resources correspond to particular station). Referring to claim 11, Lee teaches the method of claim 10, wherein transmitting the signals to the second end device from the wireless device includes transmitting the signals to the second end device on different spatial streams (Fig. 3A-3B, 4) using different sized bandwidths (¶[183], [189], dividing channel bandwidth into multiple frequency areas that may be assigned to different stations & ¶ [203], [205] transmitting frames containing information for multiple stations within a multi-user transmission frames). Referring to claim 12, Lee teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising utilizing a universal signal (USIG) to transmit information associated with transmission of the signals to the first and second end devices (see ¶ [220], [232], frames include signaling fields indicating resource allocation and transmission parameters). Referring to claim 13, Lee teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising utilizing an Extreme High Throughput Signal (EHTSIG) to transmit information associated with transmission of the signals to the first and second end devices (Fig. 9 – Fig. 11, [183], [193], [198], [209], [214], [220], transmission of signals to the different end devices using different sized bandwidths). Referring to claim 14, Lee teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising utilizing at least one new field of a Physical Layer Convergence Protocol (PLCP) Protocol Data Unit ("PPDU") to transmit information associated with transmission of the signals to the first and second end devices (Fig. 7B, [232], frames includes signaling fields carrying allocation information ¶ [232], resource allocation information conveyed in PPDU fields). Referring to claim 15, Lee teaches the method of claim 14, wherein utilizing the at least one new field of the frame includes utilizing a new common info field and a new user info field of the PPDU to transmit the information associated with the transmission of the signals to the first and second end devices (Fig. 16A, Frames includes a Common Info field describing RU allocation - Fig. 16A-16B frames include per-STA info fields identifying allocations for stations). Referring to claim 16, Lee teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the new common info field indicates a total number of end devices present (see ¶ [abs], [183], RU allocation field indicates number of user fields corresponding to frequency areas). Referring to claim 17, Lee teaches the method of claim 15, wherein utilizing the at least one new field of the frame includes utilizing multiple user info fields of the PPDU equal to the number of the different end devices (Fig. 16 A, 16b), and wherein each of the multiple user info fields includes information of a specific end device (see ¶ [203], each field contains allocation information for a particular station). Referring to claim 18, Lee teaches the method of claim 10, wherein transmitting the signals to the first and second end devices from the wireless device includes transmitting the signals to the first and second end devices using different numbers of spatial streams (Fig. 12, [246], [296], [319], [320], [322], [327], first set of spatial streams and second set of spatial streams) 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claims 1-9 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montreuil (US pub, 2017/0126453) in view of Lee (US pub, 2017/0094664). Referring to claim 1, Montreuil teaches a wireless device ([abs], Fig.2, Wireless Communication devices(WDEVs) capable of transmitting OFDMA frames and communicating with other devices) comprising: a wireless transceiver arranged to receive and transmit signals (Fig. 2c, [057] Transceiver arranged to receive and transmit signal, this what any transceiver does); and a controller operably coupled to the wireless transceiver to process the signals ([059]-[062], processing circuitry 330, coupled to transceiver to process signals) wherein the controller is configured to transmit the signals to different end devices (Fig. 2A-2C; RU Allocation discussion) using different sized bandwidths (Fig. 7A-7C showing RU sizes such as 26-tone, 106tone, 242 tone etc. – [070]-[071]), Montreuil teaches OFDMA transmission using resource unit (RU) allocation but expressly lacks wherein the signals transmitted to a first end device use a first bandwidth of a first size. However, Lee teaching signaling resource allocation to specific stations using frame fields such as RU allocation fields and per STA identifying RU allocations for different devices. Furthermore, Lee teaches wherein the signals transmitted to a first end device use a first bandwidth of a first size (Fig.8, ¶ [193], First frequency area bandwidth portion to another station within the same transmission frame) and the signals transmitted to a first end device use a second bandwidth of a second size (¶ [195],[198], Assigning another frequency area bandwidth portion to another station within the same transmission frame, ¶ [220], [232][234], RU allocation fields and per STA information fields that indicate which frequency resources correspond to particular station). It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time invention was made to modify OFDMA transmission system of Montreuil to incorporate the RU allocation signaling structure as taught by Lee that would merely involve using a known signaling structure to convey known OFDMA resource allocations yielding predictable results in order to allow the transmitting device to explicitly signal which bandwidth portions (RU) corresponds to which receiving device. Referring to claim 2, Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the signals to different end devices on different spatial streams using different sized bandwidths ([010], [019], a number of spatial streams [116], [128], [244] – [247]). Referring to claim 3, Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to use a universal signal (USIG) to transmit information associated with transmission of the signals to the different end devices using the different sized bandwidths (see ¶ [220], [232], frames include signaling fields indicating resource allocation and transmission parameters). Referring to claim 4, Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to use an Extreme High Throughput Signal (EHTSIG) to transmit information associated with transmission of the signals to the different end devices using the different sized bandwidths (Fig. 9 – Fig. 11, [183], [193], [198], [209], [214], [220], transmission of signals to the different end devices using different sized bandwidths) . Referring to claim 5, Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to use at least one new field of a Physical Layer Convergence Protocol (PLCP) Protocol Data Unit ("PPDU") ([078]-[082] to transmit information associated with transmission of the signals to the different end devices using the different sized bandwidths (Fig. 7B, [232], frames includes signaling fields carrying allocation information ¶ [232], resource allocation information conveyed in PPDU fields). Referring to claim 6, Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to use a new common info field and a new user info field of the PPDU to transmit information associated with transmission of the signals to the different end devices using the different sized bandwidths (Fig. 16A, Frames includes a Common Info field describing RU allocation - Fig. 16A-16B frames include per-STA info fields identifying allocations for stations). Referring to claim 7, Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 6, wherein the new common info field indicates a total number of end devices present (see ¶ [183], RU allocation fields indicate number of user fields). Referring to claim 8, Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to use multiple user info fields of the PPDU ([078] –[082]) equal to the number of the different end devices, and wherein each of the multiple user info fields (Fig. 16A, multiple per STA fields corresponds to multiple stations) includes information of a specific end device (see ¶ [203], each field corresponds to a specific station). Referring to claim 9, Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the signals to the different end devices using different numbers of spatial streams (¶ [116], Spatial streams) for each end device (¶[203], ¶ [205], multi-user transmission with multiple stations receiving signals). Referring to claim 19, Montreuil teaches a wireless device comprising: a wireless transceiver arranged to receive and transmit signals (Fig. 2c, [057] Transceiver arranged to receive and transmit signal, this what any transceiver does); and a controller operably coupled to the wireless transceiver to process the signals ([059]-[062], processing circuitry 330, coupled to transceiver to process signals), wherein the controller is configured to spatially multiplex the signals to different end devices (Fig. 2A-2C; RU Allocation discussion) using different sized bandwidths in a total available bandwidth using different sized bandwidths (Fig. 7A-7C showing RU sizes such as 26-tone, 106tone, 242 tone etc. – [070]-[071]), Montreuil teaches OFDMA transmission using resource unit (RU) allocation but expressly lacks wherein the signals transmitted to a first end device use a first bandwidth of a first size and the signals transmitted to a second end device use a second bandwidth of a second size. However, Lee teaching signaling resource allocation to specific stations using frame fields such as RU allocation fields and per STA identifying RU allocations for different devices. Furthermore, Lee teaches wherein the signals transmitted to a first end device use a first bandwidth of a first size (Fig.8, ¶ [193], First frequency area bandwidth portion to another station within the same transmission frame) and the signals transmitted to a second end device use a second bandwidth of a second size (¶ [195],[198], Assigning another frequency area bandwidth portion to another station within the same transmission frame, ¶ [220], [232][234], RU allocation fields and per STA information fields that indicate which frequency resources correspond to particular station). It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time invention was made to modify OFDMA transmission system of Montreuil to incorporate the RU allocation signaling structure as taught by Lee that would merely involve using a known signaling structure to convey known OFDMA resource allocations yielding predictable results in order to allow the transmitting device to explicitly signal which bandwidth portions (RU) corresponds to which receiving device. Referring to claim 20, Montreuil and Lee teaches the wireless device of claim 19, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the signals to the different end devices (Montreuil: Fig. 2A) using different numbers of spatial streams (Montreuil: Fig. 8, Fig. 9, PHY transmission architecture including spatial stream parsing, spatial mapping and spatial processing for wireless transmission) such that a first number of spatial streams is used for one of the different end devices (Lee¶ [203], multi-user transmission in which different stations may be assigned different transmission parameters within the frame) and a second number of spatial streams is used for another one of the different end devices (Lee ¶[205], transmission configurations for multiple stations within a frame allowing different parameters for different stations). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant prior art can be found in the included form PTO-892 (Notice of Cited References). The examiner also requests, when responding to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFTAB N. KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5172. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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. /AFTAB N. KHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587579
SELECTING PROXY DEVICE BASED ON HARDWARE RESOURCE UTILIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574440
MEDIA CONTENT MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574356
BANDWIDTH CONTROLLED MULTI-PARTY JOINT DATA PROCESSING METHODS AND APPARATUSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574426
IDENTIFYING INSERTION POINTS FOR INSERTING LIVE CONTENT INTO A CONTINUOUS CONTENT STREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557234
SERVER INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM SECURITY BEZEL WITH INTEGRATED FILTER COMPARTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 454 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month