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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. (US 2016/0374085, hereinafter “Chun”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0308591, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 13, Chun discloses a first station (STA) (non-AP 1550, Fig. 15) comprising:
at least one transceiver (RF unit 1580, Fig. 15); and
at least one processor (processor 1560, Fig. 15) connected to the at least one transceiver,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, through the at least one transceiver, first information indicating a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index or a second MCS index associated with a duplication (DUP) mode from a second STA (station receiving an uplink transmission indication frame from an AP, the uplink transmission indication frame including MCS information used for subsequent uplink transmission by each of the multiple STAs and information on the size of the uplink data and transmission opportunity, para. 0008 and 0053, see Fig. 2; examiner note: the claim only requires receiving either first MCS index OR second MCS index, and the prior art discloses the “first MCS index” ); and
transmit, through the at least one transceiver, a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to the second STA based on the first information (each of the multiple STAs transmit uplink frames to the AP, based on uplink transmission indication frame, para. 0051, 0053, Fig. 2),
wherein the PPDU also includes information on the bandwidth/index, (para. 0108-0109).
However, Chun does not expressly disclose:
wherein based on the first information indicating the first MCS index in a bandwidth of 20*N MHz (N is a natural number greater than or equal to 1), 40*N MHz, or 80*N MHz, a first number of data tones are used (this wherein clause is contingent on receiving the “first MCS index” and is technically not given patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.04; however, the rest of the rejection with which applies the prior art reference to LEE below, treats this first wherein clause as if it is given weight), and
wherein based on the first information indicating the second MCS index in a bandwidth of 20*N MHz, 40*N MHz, or 80*N MHz, a second number of data tones smaller than the first number are used (this wherein clause is contingent on receiving the “second MCS index” and is not given patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.04).
Lee discloses a related communication system in which control information is transmitted to target stations, the control information including modulation coding scheme (MCS) information and channel bandwidth information (para. 0019, and 0022). Lee further discloses that specific channel bandwidths correspond to a certain number of subcarriers (20 MHz bandwidth uses 52 subcarriers and 40 MHz bandwidth uses 104 subcarriers, see para. 0085 and 0121). Thus, Lee suggests conveying MCS information with channel bandwidth information in control information and that a specific number of subcarriers are used with 20 MHz and 40 MHz channel bandwidths.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to modify the system of Chun to specify that the control information also includes bandwidth information, and that a specify number of subcarriers are used for 20 and 40 MHz channel bandwidths, since this is suggested by the related control information transmission scheme of Lee.
Regarding claims 3-7, the subject matter is not given patentable weight since they are dependent on one or more contingent limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claims 3-7 are rejected in view of the rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Chun and Lee do not expressly disclose the first MCS index corresponds to at least one of BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, 64-QAM, 256-QAM or BPSK-DCM.
However, Chun discloses the AP receives signals using 64-QAM, which implies that the signals received by the AP (i.e. “uplink signals”) were modulated using 64-QAM, and Chun also discloses the uplink transmission indication frame informs the stations on which modulation and coding scheme to use for uplink transmission. Thus, it is implicit from the disclosure of Chun that the MCS indicated in the uplink transmission indication frame specifies at least 64-QAM.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to specify the first MCS index corresponds to at least 64-QAM since this is implicitly disclosed by Chun.
Regarding claim 9, Chun and Lee disclose everything applied to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose the MCS index is one of 0 to 9 and 15, and the second MCS index is 14.
While not expressly disclosed by the prior art, this would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since the specific numbering of MCS indexes does not appear to solve any particular problem and a different set of index numbers would have worked equally well.
Therefore, the subject matter of claim 9 is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, and is rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Lee further discloses an operating band in which the first PPDU is transmitted is a millimeter wave (mmWave) band or a 60 GHz band (60 GHz band, para. 0011).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. (US 2016/0374085, hereinafter “Chun”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0308591, hereinafter “Lee”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US 12,549,278).
Regarding claim 2, Chun and Lee disclose everything applied to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose the first information is received from the second STA through a MCS subfield included in a SIG field of a second PPDU.
Huang discloses a PPDU including a TRS control subfield that comprises an uplink modulation and coding scheme subfield (see claim 1 of Huang). Thus, Huang suggests transmitting uplink MCS information as a subfield as part of another field (TRS control subfield is applicable to the recited “SIG” field since “SIG” is not defined in the claim and is treated as a naming convention) in a PPDU.
Because both Huang and the combination of Chun and Lee disclose transmitting uplink MCS information in a PPDU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to substitute one uplink MCS transmission scheme for another, for the predictable result of transmitting the uplink MCS as a subfield as part of another field in an PPDU.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Hannah Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/David S Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights