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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2025 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “can be generated”, “can include”, and “can be transmitted” is speculative and fails to provide a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3 – 5, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “generated without performing pre-forward error correction padding before performing the one or more code block repetitions” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear what operations are preformed and what order the operations are performed. Specifically, the language “without” indicates the operation is not performed. However, the language “before” indicated the operation is performed after the generation.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “indicated in units of one or more bytes” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “units”. Specifically, is the value indicated a number of bytes, or rather the value is stored in byte delineated values.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “generating the ELR PPDU without performing pre-forward error correction padding before performing the one or more code block repetitions” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear what operations are preformed and what order the operations are performed. Specifically, the language “without” indicates the operation is not performed. However, the language “before” indicated the operation is performed after the generation.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “generating the ELR PPDU without performing pre-forward error correction padding before performing the one or more code block repetitions or with a fixed number of pre-forward error correction padding bits” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the relationship between “generating the ELR PPDU”, “performing pre-forward error correction padding”, “performing the one or more code block repetitions”, and “a fixed number of pre-forward error correction padding bits” in relation to “or”. Specifically, it is unclear what role ““a fixed number of pre-forward error correction padding bits” has in relation to the “generating the ELR PPDU”
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “indicated in units of one or more bytes” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “units”. Specifically, is the value indicated a number of bytes, or rather the value is stored in byte delineated values.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “indicated in units of one or more bytes” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “units”. Specifically, is the value indicated a number of bytes, or rather the value is stored in byte delineated values.
Any claim not addressed above is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 15 is directed to a mathematical relationship or algorithm that have been identified as abstract by numerous courts.
In analyzing claim 1 of the instant application, the limitation “generating an extended long range (ELR) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising performing one or more code block repetitions and generating code block repetition signaling information” is directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract.
The additional elements recited in the claims such as a “wireless communication” is merely generic computer elements performing generic computer functions, and merely transmitting data is routine and well known in the art, thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, limitations such as “transmitting the ELR PPDU in a wireless manner” is merely intended use statements that do not define the wireless communication to be anything more than well known, generic computer elements.
Claims 2 – 9 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claim 1.
Claim 2
a mathematical algorithm
Claim 3
a mathematical algorithm
Claim 4
Intended use
Claim 5
Intended use
Claim 6
a mathematical algorithm
Claim 7
Intended use
Claim 8
a mathematical algorithm
Claim 9
Intended use
In analyzing claim 10 of the instant application, the limitation “generating an extended long range (ELR) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising performing one or more code block repetitions and generating code block repetition signaling information” is directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract.
The additional elements recited in the claims such as a “A processor comprising memory and circuitry configured to cause the processor to perform operations” are merely generic computer elements performing generic computer functions, and merely managing data is routine and well known in the art (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC), thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 11 – 14 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claim 10.
Claim 11
Intended use
Claim 12
a mathematical algorithm
Claim 13
a mathematical algorithm
Claim 14
a mathematical algorithm
In analyzing claim 15 of the instant application, the limitation “decode the ELR PPDU based on the code block repetition signaling information” is directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract.
The additional elements recited in the claims such as a “one or more antennas; one or more radios operably coupled to the one or more antennas: and “a processor operably coupled to the one or more radios” are merely generic computer elements performing generic computer functions, and merely managing data is routine and well known in the art (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC), thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, limitations such as “receive an extended long range (ELR) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising code block repetition signaling information;” is merely intended use statements that do not define the wireless device to be anything more than well known, generic computer elements.
Claims 16 – 20 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claim 15.
Claim 16
Intended use
Claim 17
Intended use
Claim 18
Intended use
Claim 19
Intended use
Claim 20
Intended use
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims XX are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 10, 12 – 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krysl et al., U.S. Publication 2016/0173130 (herein Krysl).
Regarding claim 1, Krysl discloses: A method for operation in wireless communication, comprising: generating an extended long range (ELR) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising performing one or more code block repetitions and generating code block repetition signaling information (figure 4, 10A, 10B; paragraph 0052 – 0055); and transmitting the ELR PPDU in a wireless manner (figure 4, 10A, 10B; paragraph 0052 – 0055).
Regarding claim 3, Krysl discloses: wherein the ELR PPDU is generated without performing pre-forward error correction padding before performing the one or more code block repetitions (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Krysl discloses: wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates a number of forward error correction code bits (figure 4, element 410a).
Regarding claim 5, Krysl discloses: wherein the number of forward error correction code bits is indicated in units of one or more bytes (figure 4, element 410a).
Regarding claim 6, Krysl discloses: performing pre-forward error correction padding for the ELR PPDU after performing the one or more code block repetitions (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 7, Krysl discloses: wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates a number of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols and a pre-forward error correction padding factor (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0033, 0034).
Regarding claim 8, Krysl discloses: performing pre-forward error correction padding before performing the one or more code block repetitions (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 9, Krysl discloses: wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates a number of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols and a pre-forward error correction padding factor (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0033, 0034).
Regarding claim 10, Krysl discloses: A processor comprising memory and circuitry configured to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: generating an extended long range (ELR) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising performing one or more code block repetitions and generating code block repetition signaling information (figure 4, 10A, 10B; paragraph 0052 – 0055).
Regarding claim 12, Krysl discloses: generating the ELR PPDU without performing pre-forward error correction padding before performing the one or more code block repetitions or with a fixed number of pre-forward error correction padding bits configured to result in a number of forward error correction code bits equaling an integer number of units of one or more bytes (figure 4, element 410a; paragraph 0042), wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates the number of forward error correction code bits in the units of one or more bytes(figure 4, element 410a; paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 13, Krysl discloses: performing pre-forward error correction padding after performing the one or more code block repetitions (figure 4, element 410a; paragraph 0042), wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates a number of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols and a pre-forward error correction padding factor (figure 4, element 410a; paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 14, Krysl discloses: performing pre-forward error correction padding before performing the one or more code block repetitions (figure 4, element 410a; paragraph 0042), wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates a number of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols and a pre-forward error correction padding factor (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0033, 0034).
Regarding claim 15, Krysl discloses: A wireless device, comprising: one or more antennas (figure 2); one or more radios operably coupled to the one or more antennas (figure2); and a processor operably coupled to the one or more radios; wherein the wireless device is configured to: receive an extended long range (ELR) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising code block repetition signaling information (figure 14, element 1402, 1404, 1406); and decode the ELR PPDU based on the code block repetition signaling information (figure 14, element 1408).
Regarding claim 17, Krysl discloses: wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates a number of forward error correction code bits in units of one or more bytes (figure 4, element 410a).
Regarding claim 18, Krysl discloses: wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates a number of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols and a pre-forward error correction padding factor associated with pre-forward error correction padding that is performed after forward error correction code block repetition is performed (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0033, 0034; figure 4, element 410a; paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 19, Krysl discloses: wherein the code block repetition signaling information indicates a number of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols and a pre-forward error correction padding factor associated with pre-forward error correction padding that is performed before forward error correction code block repetition is performed (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0033, 0034; figure 4, element 410a; paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 20, Krysl discloses: wherein the code block repetition signaling information is comprised in an ELR-SIG field that is located before an ultra high reliability short training field (UHR-STF) or after an ultra high reliability long training field (UHR-LTF) of the ELR PPDU (figure 4, element 410a, 420a, 420b).
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.
Claims 2, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krysl, in view of Yu et al., U.S. Publication 2023/0006787 (herein Yu).
Regarding claim 2, Krysl teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Krysl does not explicitly teach: the ELR PPDU comprises an early packet classification field comprising one or more sequences configured to indicate basic service set color information.
Yu teaches: an early packet classification field comprising one or more sequences configured to indicate basic service set color information (claim 26).
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, would find it obvious to combine the teaching of Krysl: generating an extended long range (ELR) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising performing one or more code block repetitions; with the teaching of Yu: basic service set color information for the purpose of managing network communication (paragraph 0009). Generating data packets for wireless communication is well-known in the art (abstract). Basic service set color information is well-known design choice in the art to manage network communication (paragraph 0009). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of well-known design choice would yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 11, Krysl teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Krysl does not explicitly teach: the ELR PPDU comprises an early packet classification field that comprises one or more sequences configured to indicate basic service set color information.
Yu teaches: the ELR PPDU comprises an early packet classification field that comprises one or more sequences configured to indicate basic service set color information (claim 26). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 2, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 16, Krysl teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Krysl does not explicitly teach: the ELR PPDU comprises an early packet classification field that comprises one or more sequences configured to indicate basic service set color information.
Yu teaches: the ELR PPDU comprises an early packet classification field that comprises one or more sequences configured to indicate basic service set color information (claim 26). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 2, the claim is rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
XU; Jin et al. US 20170359150 A1
Park; Minyoung et al. US 20200136884 A1
Golitschek Edler Von Elbwart; et al. US 20070022355 A1
Golitschek Edler Von Elbwart; et al. US 20070124643 A1
CHOU; Tzu-Hsuan et al. US 20250337522 A1
Shoemake; Matthew B. US 20150243163 A1
Seok; Yongho et al. US 20230048964 A1
BAR-OR TILLINGER; Amit et al. US 20240063948 A1
Ko; Woo Suk et al. US 8670494 B2
YUKAWA; MITSUYOSHI US 20230232483 A1
generating an extended long range (ELR) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising performing one or more code block repetitions and generating code block repetition signaling information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL F MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571)270-3750. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel F. McMahon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights