DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on September 4, 2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 3-5 and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shellhammer et al (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0035113) in view of Yang et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0365320).
Regarding claim 1, Shellhammer et al discloses a method comprising:
generating, by a first station (STA), a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (see at least paragraph 65 disclose that trigger-based (TB) physical layer convergence protocol (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU); see also paragraph 77); and
transmitting, by the first STA, the PPDU to at least one second STA (see at least paragraph 77 disclose that wireless stations (STAs) to transmit PPDU to the
access point (AP)),
wherein a transmission of the PPDU is based on at least one distributed-tone resource unit (DRU) tone plan (see at least paragraphs 65 and 77 disclose that TB PPDU carries tone plan),
Shellhammer et al specifically does not disclose wherein the PPDU is based on a 160MHz bandwidth including a first 80MHz bandwidth and a second 80MHz bandwidth, wherein a 40MHz bandwidth within the first 80MHz bandwidth is punctured,
wherein a non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth includes the second 80MHz bandwidth and a remaining 40MHz bandwidth of the first 80MHz bandwidth, and wherein a first DRU tone plan for an 80MHz bandwidth is applied to the second 80MHz bandwidth, and a second DRU tone plan for a 40MHz bandwidth is applied to the remaining 40MHz bandwidth.
However, Yang et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the PPDU is based on a 160MHz bandwidth including a first 80MHz bandwidth and a second 80MHz bandwidth, wherein a 40MHz bandwidth within the first 80MHz bandwidth is punctured, wherein a non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth includes the second 80MHz bandwidth and a remaining 40MHz bandwidth of the first 80MHz bandwidth, and wherein a first DRU tone plan for an 80MHz bandwidth is applied to the second 80MHz bandwidth, and a second DRU tone plan for a 40MHz bandwidth is applied to the remaining 40MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraphs 164 and fig. 10 discloses punctured include 80 MHz within the 160 MHz bandwidth; remaining 120 bandwidth correspond to usable bandwidth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Yang et al into the system of Shellhammer et al for purpose of the PPDU may be punctured and have a portion of its bandwidth reserved.
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al discloses only the second DRU tone plan is applied within the first 80MHz bandwidth in which the 40MHz bandwidth is punctured (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al discloses a combination of a first DRU for the remaining 40MHz bandwidth and a second DRU for the second 80MHz bandwidth is applied (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Shellhammer et al discloses the first DRU is a 26-tone DRU and the second DRU is a 26-tone DRU or a 52-tone DRU, the first DRU is a 52-tone DRU and the second DRU is a 106-tone DRU, the first DRU is a 106-tone DRU and the second DRU is a 242-tone DRU, or the first DRU is a 242-tone DRU and the second DRU is a 484-tone DRU (see at least paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 10, Shellhammer et al discloses based on N (N>1) DRU being allocated for the first STA, the N DRUs are indicated based on resource unit (RU) allocation information included in a plurality of user fields included in the PPDU or indicated based on RU allocation information included in a plurality of user information fields included in a trigger frame that triggers transmission of the PPDU (see at least paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 11, Shellhammer et al discloses an apparatus for a first station (STA) (see at least paragraph 64, STA), the apparatus comprising:
at least one transceiver (see at least paragraph 64, transceiver in communication device); and
at least one processor (see at least paragraph 64, processor) connected to the at least one transceiver,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
generate a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (see at least paragraph 65 disclose that trigger-based (TB) physical layer convergence protocol (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU); see also paragraph 77); and
transmit the PPDU to at least one second STA (see at least paragraph 77 disclose that wireless stations (STAs) to transmit PPDU to the access point (AP)),
wherein a transmission of the PPDU is based on at least one distributed-tone resource unit (DRU) tone plan (see at least paragraphs 65 and 77 disclose that TB PPDU carries tone plan).
Shellhammer et al specifically does not disclose wherein the PPDU is based on a 160MHz bandwidth including a first 80MHz bandwidth and a second 80MHz bandwidth, wherein a 40MHz bandwidth within the first 80MHz bandwidth is punctured,
wherein a non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth includes the second 80MHz bandwidth and a remaining 40MHz bandwidth of the first 80MHz bandwidth, and wherein a first DRU tone plan for an 80MHz bandwidth is applied to the second 80MHz bandwidth, and a second DRU tone plan for a 40MHz bandwidth is applied to the remaining 40MHz bandwidth.
However, Yang et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the PPDU is based on a 160MHz bandwidth including a first 80MHz bandwidth and a second 80MHz bandwidth, wherein a 40MHz bandwidth within the first 80MHz bandwidth is punctured, wherein a non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth includes the second 80MHz bandwidth and a remaining 40MHz bandwidth of the first 80MHz bandwidth, and wherein a first DRU tone plan for an 80MHz bandwidth is applied to the second 80MHz bandwidth, and a second DRU tone plan for a 40MHz bandwidth is applied to the remaining 40MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraphs 164 and fig. 10 discloses punctured include 80 MHz within the 160 MHz bandwidth; remaining 120 bandwidth correspond to usable bandwidth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Yang et al into the system of Shellhammer et al for purpose of the PPDU may be punctured and have a portion of its bandwidth reserved.
Regarding claim 12, Shellhammer et al discloses an apparatus for a second station (STA) (see at least paragraph 63, AP), the apparatus comprising:
at least one transceiver (see at least paragraph 63, transceiver in wireless communication device); and
at least one processor (see at least paragraph 63, processor) connected to the at least one transceiver,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from a first STA, a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (see at least paragraph 77 disclose that wireless stations (STAs) to transmit PPDU to the access point (AP)); and
decode one or more fields included in the PPDU (see at least paragraphs 51 and 53),
wherein a transmission of the PPDU is based on at least one distributed-tone resource unit (DRU) tone plan (see at least paragraphs 65 and 77 disclose that TB
PPDU carries tone plan).
Shellhammer et al specifically does not disclose wherein the PPDU is based on a 160MHz bandwidth including a first 80MHz bandwidth and a second 80MHz bandwidth, wherein a 40MHz bandwidth within the first 80MHz bandwidth is punctured,
wherein a non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth includes the second 80MHz bandwidth and a remaining 40MHz bandwidth of the first 80MHz bandwidth, and wherein a first DRU tone plan for an 80MHz bandwidth is applied to the second 80MHz bandwidth, and a second DRU tone plan for a 40MHz bandwidth is applied to the remaining 40MHz bandwidth.
However, Yang et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the PPDU is based on a 160MHz bandwidth including a first 80MHz bandwidth and a second 80MHz bandwidth, wherein a 40MHz bandwidth within the first 80MHz bandwidth is punctured, wherein a non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth includes the second 80MHz bandwidth and a remaining 40MHz bandwidth of the first 80MHz bandwidth, and wherein a first DRU tone plan for an 80MHz bandwidth is applied to the second 80MHz bandwidth, and a second DRU tone plan for a 40MHz bandwidth is applied to the remaining 40MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraphs 164 and fig. 10 discloses punctured include 80 MHz within the 160 MHz bandwidth; remaining 120 bandwidth correspond to usable bandwidth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Yang et al into the system of Shellhammer et al for purpose of the PPDU may be punctured and have a portion of its bandwidth reserved.
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al discloses the non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth corresponds to a 120MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Yang et al discloses the second 80MHz bandwidth is not punctured; and the first DRU tone plan is applied over an entirety of the second 80MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al discloses the punctured 40MHz bandwidth and the remaining 40MHz bandwidth are included in the first 80MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Shellhammer et al discloses punctured corresponds to unallocated and non-punctured corresponds to allocated (see at least paragraphs 82).
Regarding claim 17, Yang et al discloses the non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth corresponds to a 120MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 11.
Regarding claim 18, Yang et al discloses the second 80MHz bandwidth is not punctured; and the first DRU tone plan is applied over an entirety of the second 80MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, Yang et al discloses the punctured 40MHz bandwidth and the remaining 40MHz bandwidth are included in the first 80MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, Yang et al discloses the non-punctured portion of the 160MHz bandwidth corresponds to a120MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 12.
Regarding claim 21, Yang et al discloses the second 80MHz bandwidth is not punctured; and the first DRU tone plan is applied over an entirety of the second 80MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 12.
Regarding claim 22, Yang et al discloses the punctured 40MHz bandwidth and the remaining 40MHz bandwidth are included in the first 80MHz bandwidth (see at least paragraph 164). Same motivation as claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on August 14, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment. See the above rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 10-22 for the relevant citations found in Shellhammer et al and Yang et al disclosing the limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights