Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 07/13/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 45-75 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the continuation benefit of a prior-filed application as ADS filed on 11/22/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 51 recites the limitation “said another access point apparatus” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 45 recites “another access point apparatus” and “the another access point apparatus”. Applicant is suggested to recite either “the” or “said” consistently.
Double Patenting
6. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 45-75 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,052 B2 in view of Noh et al. Pub. No.: US 2017/0142659 A1.
To avoid causing unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and possible harassment by multiple assignees, the instant independent claims 45, 57, 70, 71 and 73-74 are compared to the patent claims 1 and 15-16.
7.1. Patent Claim 1 renders the instant claim limitations obvious or anticipates the instant limitations of instant claim 45 the following instant claim limitations:
transmitting a trigger frame to another access point apparatus (lines 33-45 of col. 14);
performing a cooperative operation complying with IEEE 802.11 standard with the another access point apparatus, based on the trigger frame (lines 33-49 of col. 14); and
wirelessly transmitting a frame that includes a preamble and a data field, wherein the preamble includes (lines 21-23 of col. 14):
a L-Short Training Field, L-STF (line 24 of col. 14);
a L-Long Training Field, L-LTF, that is arranged immediately after the L-STF in the frame (lines 25-26 of col. 14);
a L-Signal Field, L-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-LTF in the frame (lines 27-28 of col. 14); and
wherein the first Signal Field includes a predetermined field including information indicating color of the another access point apparatus associated with the cooperative operation (lines 29-32 of col. 14).
Although patent does not disclose: “a trigger frame; a Repeated L-SIG, RL-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-SIG in the frame; a first Signal Field that is arranged after the RL-SIG in the frame; a first Short Training Field that is arranged after the first Signal Field in the frame; and a first Long Training Field that is arranged immediately after the first Short Training field in the frame, a Basic Service Set, BSS”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the rationales found in Noh.
In particular, Noh teaches a trigger frame (par. 0035); Repeated L-SIG, RL-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-SIG in the frame (RL-SIG after L-SIG in fig. 7A-D); a first Signal Field that is arranged after the RL-SIG in the frame (HE-SIG A after RL-SIG in fig. 7A-D); a first Short Training Field that is arranged after the first Signal Field in the frame (HE-STF after HE-SIG A in fig. 7A-D); and a first Long Training Field that is arranged immediately after the first Short Training field in the frame (HE-LTF after HE-STF in fig. 7A-D), and a Basic Service Set BSS (BSS in par. 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Patent Claim by providing High-Efficiency Frame as taught in Noh. Such a modification would have provided a high efficiency frame in a wireless local area network WLAN to detect early transmission timing so that the spatial reuse would have minimized the interference from neighbor WLAN devices as suggested in par. 0002-0003 of Noh.
7.2. The instant claims 70 and 73 are method and product claims reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of the instant claim 45. Accordingly, the instant claims 70 and 73 can be compared to the patent claims 15-16 respectively in the same way that the instant claim 45 is compared to the patent claim 1 set forth above.
7.3. The instant claims 57, 71 and 74 are station, method and product claims reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of the instant claim 45 from the station side, or a receiving side. Accordingly, the instant claims 57, 71 and 74 can be compared to the patent claims 1 & 15-16 respectively, in the same way that the instant claim 45 is compared to the patent claim 1 set forth above.
7.4. The fact that the instant dependent claims are not discussed in details here is due to the following reasons: the patented dependent claims might render the dependent claims obvious; filing terminal disclaimer, TD, would overcome the obviousness type double patenting, ODP, rejection under 35 USC 101; without TD, amendment made to the claims in the future would necessitate determination again if ODP will still exist for the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
10. Claims 45-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0288298 A1 in view of Noh et al. Pub. No.: US 2017/0142659 A1.
Claim 45
Li discloses an access point apparatus (access point in fig. 1-19 & 21) that performs communication complying with IEEE 802.11 standard (IEEE 802.11 in par. 0004 & 0147), comprising:
at least one memory that stores a set of instructions (memory 2103 would store the instructions depicted such as configuration or triggering); and
PNG
media_image1.png
753
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one processor (processor 2102 in fig. 21) that executes the instructions, the instructions, when executed, causing the access point apparatus to perform operations (processor 2012 in fig. 21 would execute the algorithms stored in memory 2103 to perform the instructions depicted in fig. 1-18) comprising:
transmitting a trigger frame (S801 trigger frame) to another access point apparatus (par. 0089, the first AP sends the first trigger frame in a broadcast manner as explained par. 0089, alternatively, consider: the second AP receives the broadcasted trigger frame, see fig. 10 & 12);
PNG
media_image2.png
432
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
performing a cooperative operation complying with IEEE 802.11 standard with the another access point apparatus, based on the trigger frame (see fig. 8-12 for cooperating a transmission time and length for uplink and downlink based on the trigger frame, see parameters in Tables 1-2 in par. 0091-0092 & 0128); and
wirelessly transmitting a frame that includes a preamble (preamble in par. 0128) and a data field (data field in par. 0123-0124 & 0128), wherein the preamble includes:
a L-Short Training Field, L-STF (L-STF or HE-STF in fig. 14);
a L-Long Training Field, L-LTF, that is arranged immediately after the L-STF in the frame (HE-LTF in fig. 14);
a L-Signal Field, L-SIG (L-SIG in fig. 14);
a Repeated L-SIG, RL-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-SIG in the frame (RL-SIG after L-SIG in fig. 14);
a first Signal Field that is arranged after the RL-SIG in the frame (HE-SIG-A and HE-SIG-B in fig. 14);
a first Short Training Field that is arranged after the first Signal Field in the frame (HE-STF after HE-SIG-A and HE-SIG-B in fig. 14); and
a first Long Training Field that is arranged immediately after the first Short Training field in the frame (HE-LTF in fig. 14), wherein the first Signal Field includes a predetermined field including information indicating a Basic Service Set, BSS, color of the another access point apparatus associated with the cooperative operation (color bit from the HE-SIG-A field in par. 0104).
Although Li does not explicitly show: “a L-Long Training Field, L-LTF, that is arranged immediately after the L-STF in the frame; a L-Signal Field, L-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-LTF in the frame; and a first Signal Field that is arranged after the RL-SIG in the frame”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, Li discloses LTF, STF, L-SIG and SIG fields (fig. 14). Rearranging those fields in a different order requires only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). To advance the prosecution, the evidence is provided herein. In particular, Noh teaches a L-Long Training Field, L-LTF, that is arranged immediately after the L-STF in the frame (L-LTF after L-STF in fig. 7A-D); a L-Signal Field, L-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-LTF in the frame (L-SIG after L-LTF in fig. 7A-D); a first Signal Field that is arranged after the RL-SIG in the frame (HE-SIG-A after RL-SIG in fig. 7A-D), and HE-STF after HE-SIG-A (fig. 7A-D).
PNG
media_image3.png
458
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify data transmission of Li by providing High-Efficiency Frame as taught in Noh. Such a modification would have provided a high efficiency frame in a wireless local area network WLAN to detect early transmission timing so that spatial reuse would have minimized the interference from neighbor WLAN devices as suggested in par. 0002-0003 of Noh.
Claim 46
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the cooperative operation is a cooperative operation related to a Multi-AP Coordination defined in the IEEE 802.11 standard (Li, multi-AP coordination as depicted in fig. 1-18 and 802.11 standard in par. 0147; Noh, IEEE 802.11ax in par. 0032; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 47
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the frame is wirelessly transmitted using at least one of a sub-GHz band, a 2.4 GHz band, a 5 GHz band and a 6 GHz band (Noh, see Hz in Table 1 in par. 0095; IEEE 802.11 standards and use of G HZ is under FCC guidelines; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim; see evidence for Wi-Fi frequency band 2.4, 5, 6 GHz in par. 0002 of Chun et al. Pub. No.: US 2017/0280462 A1).
Claim 48
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the frame is wirelessly transmitted using Multi-Input and Multi-Output, MIMO, communication using a plurality of antennas (Li, MIMO in fig. 1 and par. 0128; and hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 49
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the trigger frame includes information indicating the BSS color of the another access point apparatus (Li, the second AP of BSS color in par. 0107, 0109 & 0117; Noh, BSS color field in par. 0036; for these reasons, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 50
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 49, wherein the trigger frame including the information is wirelessly transmitted by the access point apparatus to the another access point apparatus using at least one of a sub-GHz band, a 2.4 GHz band, a 5 GHz band and a 6 GHz band (Li, trigger frame for APs and stations in fig. 8-15; Noh, see Hz in Table 1 in par. 0095; IEEE 802.11 standards and use of G HZ is under FCC guidelines; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim; see evidence for Wi-Fi frequency band 2.4, 5, 6 GHz in par. 0002 of Chun et al. Pub. No.: US 2017/0280462 A1).
Claim 51
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein roles related to the cooperative operation are determined by communication between the access point apparatus and said another access point apparatus (Li, fig. 8-15 for cooperating between two access points and fig. 2-6 depicts how cooperation configuration is negotiated between two access points; unless claim further recites what are required and involved for the roles, the combined prior art meets the four corners of the claim).
Claim 52
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the operations further comprise deciding a transmission timing of the frame based on the trigger frame (Li, timing of transmission between the access points and the stations in fig. 9, 11 & 13-14; Noh, transmission timing in fig. 4; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 53
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the operations further comprise synchronizing a transmission timing of the frame of the access point apparatus with a transmission timing of a frame of the another access point apparatus based on transmission of the trigger frame (Li, transmission scheduled between the access points and the stations as depicted in fig. 2-14 is in fact synchronizing, for instance, in fig. 3, padding, FCS; Noh, transmission schedule in fig. 4-13; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F, it’s suggested to further device how synchronizing is performed in a particular way or what are particularly involved).
Claim 54
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the trigger frame includes information specifying a station apparatus to which the another access point apparatus is to transmit a frame in the cooperative operation (Li, transmission scheduled are cooperation between the access points and the stations as depicted in fig. 2-14; Noh, see fig. 4-13; therefore, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 55
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the number of bits in the predetermined field is six (Li, see frame format in bits designation in Tables 1-2 in par. 0092 for fig. 3-4, 7 & 14, for instance, HE-SIG-A bit reserved for 9; Noh, par. 0041, color bits; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to use 6 bits for reserved bit or HE-SIG-A bit or color bit because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980).
Claim 56
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the access point apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the information indicating the BSS color of the another access point apparatus is different from information indicating the BSS color of the access point apparatus (Li, second AP BSS color in par. 0107, 0109, 0116-0118 & 0123, BSS is a unique for every Access point or base station, so that BSS color information of one AP will be different from other AP color; Noh, color bit for BSS information in par. 0041 & 0104; thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 57
Li discloses a station apparatus (station STA in fig. 1-18 & 22) that performs communication complying with IEEE 802.11 standard (IEEE 802.11 in par. 0004 & 0147), comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
396
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
at least one memory that stores a set of instructions (memory 2203 in fig. 22 would at least store the algorithms to perform the instructions depicted in fig. 2-18); and
at least one processor (processor 2202 in fig. 22) that executes the instructions, the instructions, when executed, causing the station apparatus to perform operations (see fig. 1-18 for performing steps) comprising:
receiving, from an access point apparatus (first AP or second AP in fig. 8-14), a frame (station receives a trigger frame from the first AP in fig. 8-14) that includes a preamble and a data field (preamble in par. 0128, and data field in par. 0123-0124 & 0128),
wherein the access point apparatus transmits a trigger frame (a trigger frame in fig. 8-12) to another access point apparatus different from the access point apparatus and performs a cooperative operation complying with IEEE 802.11 standard with the another access point apparatus, based on the trigger frame (see fig. 8-12 for cooperating a transmission time and length for uplink and downlink based on the trigger frame, see parameters in Tables 1-2 in par. 0091-0092 & 0128); and wherein the preamble includes:
a L-Short Training Field, L-STF (L-STF or HE-STF in fig. 14);
a L-Long Training Field, L-LTF (HE-LTF in fig. 14);
a L-Signal Field, L-SIG (L-SIG in fig. 14);
a Repeated L-SIG, RL-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-SIG in the frame (RL-SIG after L-SIG in fig. 14);
a first Signal Field that is arranged after the RL-SIG in the frame (HE-SIG-A and HE-SIG-B after RL-SIG in fig. 14);
a first Short Training Field that is arranged after the first Signal Field in the frame (HE-STF after HE-SIG-A and HE-SIG-B in fig. 14); and
a first Long Training Field that is arranged immediately after the first Short Training field in the frame (HE-LTF after HE-STF in fig. 14),
wherein the first Signal Field includes a predetermined field including information indicating a Basic Service Set, BSS, color of the another access point apparatus associated with the cooperative operation (color bit from the HE-SIG-A field in par. 0104).
Although Li does not explicitly show: “a L-Long Training Field, L-LTF, that is arranged immediately after the L-STF in the frame; a L-Signal Field, L-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-LTF in the frame; and a first Signal Field that is arranged after the RL-SIG in the frame”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, Li discloses LTF, STF, L-SIG and SIG fields (fig. 14). Rearranging those fields in a different order requires only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). To advance the prosecution, the evidence is provided herein. In particular, Noh teaches a L-Long Training Field, L-LTF, that is arranged immediately after the L-STF in the frame (L-LTF after L-STF in fig. 7A-D); a L-Signal Field, L-SIG, that is arranged immediately after the L-LTF in the frame (L-SIG after L-LTF in fig. 7A-D); a first Signal Field that is arranged after the RL-SIG in the frame (HE-SIG-A after RL-SIG in fig. 7A-D), and HE-STF after HE-SIG-A (fig. 7A-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify data transmission of Li by providing High-Efficiency Frame as taught in Noh. Such a modification would have provided a high efficiency frame in a wireless local area network WLAN to detect early transmission timing so that spatial reuse would have minimized the interference from neighbor WLAN devices as suggested in par. 0002-0003 of Noh.
Claim 58-60 and 62-68
Claims 58-60 and 62-68 are station claims corresponding to the receiving side of claims 46-56. All the limitations in claims 58-60 and 62-68 are found reciting for the similar scopes of the respective limitations in claims 46-56. Accordingly, claims 58-60 and 62-68 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 46-56 respectively set forth above.
Claim 61
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the station apparatus according to claim 57, wherein the information that is included in the predetermined field and indicates the BSS color of the another access point apparatus corresponds to information included in the trigger frame transmitted by the access point apparatus to the another access point apparatus (Li, the second AP of BSS color in par. 0107, 0109 & 0117; Noh, BSS color field in par. 0036; for these reasons, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 69
Li, in view of Noh, discloses the station apparatus according to claim 57, wherein the operations further comprise decoding information indicating the BSS color of the another access point apparatus, the information being included in the preamble of the received frame (Li, the second AP of BSS color in par. 0107, 0109 & 0117 and see preamble in par. 0128; Noh, BSS color field in par. 0036; for these reasons, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 70 and 73
Claim 70 and 73 are method and product claims corresponding to apparatus claim 45. All of the limitations in claims 70 and 73 are found reciting for the same scopes of the respective limitations in claim 45. Accordingly, claims 70 and 73 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 45 set forth above.
Claim 71-72 and 74-75
Claims 71-72 and 74-75 are method and product claims corresponding to apparatus claims 57 and 69. All of the limitations in claims 71-72 and 74-75 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 57 and 69. Accordingly, claims 71-72 and 74-75 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 57 and 69 respectively set forth above.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN A HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights