DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2024-12-13 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-7 are pending for consideration.
35 USC §112(f) - Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The identified claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5
a transmission unit configured to transmit a trigger
generic holder: a transmission unit
functional language: configured to transmit a trigger...
Claim(s) 3
a reception unit configured to receive a trigger
generic holder: a reception unit
functional language: configured to receive a trigger...
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6, 7
With regards to all the recited acronyms:
Any abbreviation or shortened representations of a term should be spelled out completely upon its first use in each claim branch (e.g., user equipment (UE)).
For the purposes of examination against prior art, the Examiner assumes the acronyms in claims 6, 7 mean the same for those corresponding acronyms in claim 1.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SON_035 (US20210212035) in view of CHU_275 (CN109479275)
Claim(s) 1, 6-7
SON_035 teaches
a transmission unit configured to transmit a trigger-based (TB) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) including: a legacy-short training field (L-STF); a legacy-long training field (L-LTF) following the L-STF; a legacy-signal (L-SIG) following the L-LTF; a universal signal (U-SIG) which is a field following the L-SIG and includes a spatial reuse 1 subfield and a spatial reuse 2 subfield, and in which in a case where the communication apparatus uses a bandwidth
SON_035 does not explicitly teach
in which in a case where the communication apparatus uses a bandwidth of 640 MHz,
a first 320Mhz subband
a second 320Mhz subband
However in a similar endeavor, CHU_275 teaches
in which in a case where the communication apparatus uses a bandwidth of 640 MHz, a first 320Mhz subband a second 320Mhz subband Suitable bandwidth, such as 40MHz, 80MHz, 160MHz, 320MHz, 640MHz is used to communicate data units that include L-STF, L-TF, L-SIG, etc. between network devices. Accordingly, a bandwidth 640Mhz between the devices is taught. <FIG(s). 2A; para. 0038-0043, 0079-0081>.
CHU_275 demonstrates 640 MHz was a well-known bandwidth to use in a trigger-frame based environment between two communication devices. Accordingly it would have been obvious in view of CHU_275 that SON_035 could be modified to fit, as it would have been a design choice as to what bandwidth to use and spatial reuse subfield are conventionally used to indicate sub-portions of the said bandwidth.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by SON_035 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by CHU_275. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques for uplink transmission orthogonal frequency division multiplexing in wireless networks <para. 0003>.
Claim(s) 2
SON_035 teaches
the transmission unit includes an antenna that is used for transmission of the TB PPDU. Communication devices include antenna for wireless communications. <FIG(s). 1; para. 0004, 0080, 0264>.
Claim(s) 3
SON_035 teaches
wherein, in a case where the trigger frame is received from the reception unit, the transmission unit transmits the TB PPDU to the another communication apparatus. Communication device includes a receiver such that a EHT PPDU is triggered by receiving a trigger frame. <FIG(s). 16, 18, 19, 20; para. 0112, 0125, 0190-0198>.
Claim(s) 4
SON_035 teaches
in a case where a PPDU different from the TB PPDU is transmitted, the transmission unit transmits a PPDU that does not include the spatial reuse 1 and the spatial reuse 2. The device can send many types of PDDU formats, some formats do not include a spatial reuse field(s). For example, legacy PPDU formats. <FIG(s). 7; para. 0097-0098>.
Claim(s) 5
SON_035 teaches
wherein the transmission unit transmits an extremely high throughput (EHT) TB PPDU conforming to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 EHT standard. PPDU is EHT <FIG(s). 20, 21, 22; para. 0050, 0196-0198, 0203-0204, 0219-0221>.
Relevant Cited References
US20230379109
US20190132107
Examiner’s Notes
English Translations of Non-English Documents
Text herein may rely upon a non-English document. Any citations used herein for said document refers to paragraphs numbers in the (English) translated document, not the original non-English document.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. 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. 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights