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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for determining; means for activating; and means for performing in claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19-20, 22, 25-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 22, 29 and 30 recite “determining, by a node, whether a portion of medium access deferrals associated with a WiFi access procedure and not caused by a default energy detection (ED) threshold shared by a plurality of radio access technologies exceeds a time deferral threshold, the medium access deferrals correspond to a plurality of deferments of access to one or more of the plurality of radio access technologies by the WiFi-enabled supervising node, the portion determined over a predefined period of time corresponding to a maximum channel occupancy time (COT) and wherein the determining excludes deferrals attributable to receipt of user data due to the medium access deferrals and excludes deferrals due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment;” and “activating, by the node, a relaxed ED threshold for establishing medium access suitability for an unlicensed spectrum based on a determination that the WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with the one or more neighbor supervising nodes, and further on a determination that the portion of medium access deferrals not caused by the default ED threshold exceeds the time deferral threshold, the relaxed ED threshold favoring the WiFi access procedure over another spectrum access procedure, wherein activating is further based on determining that user data is not received due to the medium access deferrals and that the one or more medium access deferrals are not due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment.”
Applicant’s original Specification does not appear to disclose the amended limitations “the portion determined over a predefined period of time corresponding to a maximum channel occupancy time (COT)” and “wherein the determining excludes deferrals attributable to receipt of user data due to the medium access deferrals and excludes deferrals due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment,” and “wherein activating is further based on determining that user data is not received due to the medium access deferrals and that the one or more medium access deferrals are not due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment.”
Regarding the limitation “the portion determined over a predefined period of time corresponding to a maximum channel occupancy time (COT),” Applicant’s original Specification does not disclose any relationship between “determining, by a node, whether a portion of medium access deferrals associated with a WiFi access procedure and not caused by a default energy detection (ED)” and “a maximum channel occupancy time (COT).” The only mentions of a channel occupancy time in Applicant’s Specification state that “the one or more medium access deferrals exist for a predefined period of time corresponding to a maximum channel occupancy time (COT).” Disclosing that deferrals exist for a maximum COT is not the same as disclosing that a period of time for “determining, by a node, whether a portion of medium access deferrals associated with a WiFi access procedure and not caused by a default energy detection (ED)” is somehow related to or based on the maximum COT.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the determining excludes deferrals attributable to receipt of user data due to the medium access deferrals and excludes deferrals due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment,” Applicant’s original Specification does not disclose that the determining “excludes deferrals” at all.
Regarding the limitation “wherein activating is further based on determining that user data is not received due to the medium access deferrals and that the one or more medium access deferrals are not due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment,” Applicant’s original Specification does not disclose that the “activating [of a relaxed ED threshold] is further based on … determining that user data is not received due to the medium access deferrals.”
Dependent Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19-20, and 25-27 are rejected because they depend from independent claims 1, 22, 29 and 30.
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 1, 22, 29 and 30 recite “determining, by a node, whether a portion of medium access deferrals associated with a WiFi access procedure and not caused by a default energy detection (ED) threshold shared by a plurality of radio access technologies exceeds a time deferral threshold, the medium access deferrals correspond to a plurality of deferments of access to one or more of the plurality of radio access technologies by the WiFi-enabled supervising node, … and wherein the determining excludes deferrals attributable to receipt of user data due to the medium access deferrals and excludes deferrals due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment;” and “activating, by the node, a relaxed ED threshold for establishing medium access suitability for an unlicensed spectrum based on a determination that the WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with the one or more neighbor supervising nodes, and further on a determination that the portion of medium access deferrals not caused by the default ED threshold exceeds the time deferral threshold, the relaxed ED threshold favoring the WiFi access procedure over another spectrum access procedure, wherein activating is further based on determining that user data is not received due to the medium access deferrals and that the one or more medium access deferrals are not due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment.”
The amended limitations “deferrals attributable to receipt of user data due to the medium access deferrals,” and “wherein activating is further based on determining that user data is not received due to the medium access deferrals” would not have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention. Deferring access to a medium means not accessing the medium. It is unclear now user data reception can be due to NOT accessing a medium. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would not have been able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19-20, and 25-27 are rejected because they depend from independent claims 1, 22, 29 and 30.
Claim 19 is 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. Claim 19 recites “ED-only device.” However, it is unclear what the term “ED-only” means; and Applicant’s Specification does not provide any indication as to the meaning of the term. The appendix in Applicant’s provisional application includes a bullet point that states that “Other Options: ED threshold is lowered when an ED-only device is detected nearby (where the ED-only device is assumed to use the lower ED-threshold).” This statement does not purport to define the meaning of the term “ED-only.” The term “lower ED-threshold” is a relative term and is indefinite. Applicant offers no explanation as to what the term “lower” is measured against, or how to determine if a device has a lower ED-threshold.
Applicant asserts that the term ED-only means “ED-based channel sensing without preamble/message detection” – i.e. the NR-U “transmitter sensing only” paradigm, as discussed in paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s published Specification. However, paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s Specification discusses increasing a ED threshold to-62dBm for WiFi nodes, but does not disclose that the increase is based on detecting a type of device, and does not use the term “ED-only,” let alone purport to define a meaning for the term “ED-only.”
For purposes of Examination, the term “ED-only device” is interpreted to mean a device that performs energy detection based on a threshold.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19-20, 22, 25-27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakani (US 2016/0353329) in view of CATT: “Remaining Details of DL LBT for LAA”, 3GPP Draft; R1-156574, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #83, 3RD Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France Vol. RAN WG1, No. Anaheim, USA; 15th-22nd November 2015 (Hereafter, R1-156574), and further in view of Khawer et al. (US 2017/0353975), and further in view of Hedayat et al. (US 2021/0058966).
Regarding claim 1, Kakani discloses a method of wireless communication (Kakani, paragraph [0001], wireless networking), comprising:
determining, by a node, whether a WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with one or more neighbor supervising nodes (Kakani, paragraph [0014], IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN AP and associated stations make up a BSS; paragraph [0037], Client_2 measures RSSI of beacon frames from neighbor APs to be above RSSI of beacon frame from associated AP);
determining, by a node, whether a portion of medium access deferrals associated with a WiFi access procedure and not caused by a default energy detection (ED) threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0002], CSMA/CA requires devices to sense the communication medium; paragraph [0004], transmissions within the STA’s BSS are deferred to at the lowest possible level, transmissions that belong to an OBSS are deferred to based on a CCA threshold value, multiple threshold values exist; paragraph [0014], IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN; paragraph [0021], medium sensing before transmitting on the medium; paragraph [0027], Client_2 is an STA device associated with BSS2; paragraph [0029], Client_2 using a CCA threshold higher than CCA_th; paragraph [0042], Client_2 sets its CCA threshold for OBSS separately from its BSS threshold; paragraph [0058], set CCA threshold to a value higher than predetermined threshold) shared by a plurality of radio access technologies (Kakani, paragraph [0021], extended to other wireless environments such as Bluetooth, Zigbee; paragraph [0058], sets CCA threshold to the predetermined default threshold based on CCA information from the neighbor AP) exceeds a time deferral threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0037], first, client_2 measures beacon frames from neighbor AP, then after predetermined time period, compute maximum and minimum neighbor RSSI values), the medium access deferrals correspond to a plurality of deferments of access to one or more of the plurality of radio access technologies by the WiFi-enabled supervising node (Kakani, paragraph [0002], CSMA/CA requires devices to sense the communication medium; paragraph [0021], medium sensing before transmitting on the medium paragraph [0021], extended to other wireless environments such as Bluetooth, Zigbee), and wherein the determining excludes deferrals attributable to receipt of user data due to the medium access deferrals and excludes deferrals due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment (Kakani, paragraph [0004], STA knows whether the transmission [used data] is within their BSS [supervising equipment] or not after decoding the SIG field [used data]; paragraph [0004], transmissions [user data] within the STA’s BSS are deferred to at the lowest possible level [excluded comparison to from CCA thresholds], transmissions [user data] that belong to an OBSS are deferred to based on a CCA threshold value, multiple threshold values exist);
activating, by the node, a relaxed ED threshold for establishing medium access suitability for an unlicensed spectrum based on a determination that the WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with the one or more neighbor supervising nodes (Kakani, paragraph [0014], IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN AP; paragraph [0029], Client_2 using a CCA threshold higher than CCA_th; paragraph [0042], Client_2 sets its CCA threshold for OBSS separately from its BSS threshold), and further on a determination that the portion of medium access deferrals not caused by the default ED threshold exceeds the time deferral threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0021], medium sensing before transmitting; paragraph [0037], first, client_2 measures beacon frames from neighbor AP, then after predetermined time period, compute maximum and minimum neighbor RSSI values; paragraph [0039], after receiving information from client_2, AP2 sends instructions), the relaxed ED threshold favoring the WiFi access procedure over another spectrum access procedure (Kakani, paragraph [0014], IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN AP; paragraph [0021], extended to other wireless environments such as Bluetooth, Zigbee; paragraph [0029], Client_2 using a CCA threshold higher than CCA_th; paragraph [0042], Client_2 sets its CCA threshold for OBSS separately from its BSS threshold), wherein activating is further based on determining that user data is not received due to the medium access deferrals (Kakani, paragraph [0004], STA knows whether the transmission [used data] is within their BSS [supervising equipment] or not after decoding the SIG field [used data]; paragraph [0004], transmissions [user data] within the STA’s BSS are deferred to at the lowest possible level [excluded comparison to from CCA thresholds], transmissions [user data] that belong to an OBSS are deferred to based on a CCA threshold value, multiple threshold values exist; paragraph [0021], medium sensing before transmitting on the medium; paragraph [0037], first, client_2 measures frames from neighbor AP, then after predetermined time period, compute maximum and minimum neighbor RSSI values; paragraph [0057], threshold related information may include data frames transmitted by neighbor AP) and that the one or more medium access deferrals are not due to communications between nodes where at least one of the nodes is supervising equipment (Kakani, paragraph [0004], STA knows whether the transmission is within their BSS or not after decoding the SIG field); and
performing, by the node, an access procedure for the unlicensed spectrum (Kakani, paragraph [0001], WLAN; paragraph [0002] performing CSMA/CA) based on the relaxed ED threshold, which is higher in value than the default ED threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0001], WLAN; paragraph [0029], Client_2 using a CCA threshold higher than CCA_th; paragraph [0042], Client_2 sets its CCA threshold for OBSS separately from its BSS threshold); and
deactivating, by the node, the relaxed ED threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0001], WLAN; paragraph [0002] performing CSMA/CA; paragraph [0037], after predetermined time period, compute maximum and minimum neighbor RSSI values; paragraph [0039], after receiving information from client_2, AP2 sends instructions; paragraph [0058], sets CCA threshold to the predetermined default threshold based on CCA information from the neighbor AP), based on a determination that the portion of medium access deferrals not caused by the default ED threshold does not exceed the time deferral threshold, or based on a successful performance of the access procedure for the unlicensed spectrum, thereby reverting to the default ED threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0020], dynamically adjust CCA threshold values; paragraph [0037], first, client_2 measures beacon frames from neighbor AP, then after predetermined time period, compute maximum and minimum neighbor RSSI values; if neighbor frames are no longer detected then the CCA threshold would be dynamically adjusted back to the default value), and wherein the WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with the one or more neighbor supervising nodes via message detection or backhaul coordination in combination with ED (Kakani, paragraph [0004], STA knows whether the transmission is within their BSS or not after decoding the SIG field; paragraph [0014], AP and associated stations make up a BSS; paragraph [0037], Client_2 measures RSSI of beacon frames from neighbor APs to be above RSSI of beacon frame from associated AP; paragraph [0053], number of legacy devices in neighbor BSS).
Kakani does not explicitly disclose that the neighbor uses unlicensed spectrum and does not disclose a maximum COT.
R1-156574 discloses wherein the one or more neighbor nodes are New Radio Unlicensed (NR-U) neighbor nodes (R1-156574, section 2.1, LAA-WIFI coexistence), and a relaxed ED threshold favoring the WiFi access procedure over an unlicensed spectrum access procedure (R1-156574, section 2.1, lower maximum ED threshold used for LAA eNBs when the presence of a neighbor WiFi node is detected),
a predefined period of time corresponding to a maximum channel occupancy time (COT) (R1-156574, page 2, line 25, maximum channel occupancy time),
deactivating, by the node, the relaxed ED threshold, based on a determination that the portion of medium access deferrals not caused by the default ED threshold does not exceed the time deferral threshold, or based on a successful performance of the access procedure for the unlicensed spectrum, thereby reverting to the default ED threshold (R1-156574, section 2.1, LAA-WIFI coexistence; page 2, CW is reset to be CWminX after a successful channel access).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coexist with new radio unlicensed nodes, in the invention of Kakani. The motivation to combine the references would have been to improve coexistence with new radio nodes.
Kakani does not explicitly disclose deactivating the relaxed ED threshold in response to successfully performing the access procedure for the unlicensed spectrum.
Khawer discloses determining, by a node, whether a WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with one or more neighbor supervising nodes (Khawer, paragraph [0011], clear channel assessment of unlicensed frequency bands reused by nodes that operate according to different RATs such as Wi-Fi access points and LTE base stations, Wi-Fi node backs off if it successfully decodes preambles in transmissions by other Wi-Fi nodes at an energy level);
determining, by a node, whether a portion of medium access deferrals associated with a WiFi access procedure (Khawer, paragraph [0011), Wi-Fi node backs off if it successfully decodes preambles in transmissions by other Wi-Fi nodes at an energy level) and not caused by a default energy detection (ED) threshold shared by a plurality of radio access technologies (Khawer, paragraph [0013), coexistence of nodes can be enhanced if a node according to a first RAT modifies the energy detection threshold in response to detecting another node operating according to a second RAT) exceeds a time deferral threshold (Khawer, paragraph [0016], timer used to measure detection time interval, node determines whether the detection time interval has expired based on the value of the timer), the medium access deferrals correspond to a plurality of deferments of access to one or more of the plurality of radio access technologies by the WiFi-enabled supervising node (Khawer, paragraph [0011), Wi-Fi node backs off if it successfully decodes preambles in transmissions by other Wi-Fi nodes at an energy level; paragraph [0013), coexistence of nodes can be enhanced if a node according to a first RAT modifies the energy detection threshold in response to detecting another node operating according to a second RAT), and wherein the determining excludes deferrals attributable to receipt of user data due to the medium access deferrals (Khawer, paragraph [0013], first node may decode a pseudo-beacon transmitted by a second node);
activating, by the node, a relaxed ED threshold for establishing medium access suitability for an unlicensed spectrum based on a determination that the WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with the one or more neighbor supervising nodes, the relaxed ED threshold favoring the WiFi access procedure over an unlicensed spectrum access procedure (Khawer, paragraph [0011], Wi-Fi node backs off if it successfully decodes preambles in transmissions by other Wi-Fi nodes at an energy level; paragraph [0013), coexistence of nodes can be enhanced if a node according to a first RAT modifies the energy detection threshold in response to detecting another node operating according to a second RAT), wherein activating is further based on determining that user data is not received due to the medium access deferrals (Khawer, paragraph [0013], first node may decode a pseudo-beacon transmitted by a second node); and
performing, by the node, an access procedure for the unlicensed spectrum based on the relaxed ED threshold, which is higher in value than the default ED threshold (Khawer, paragraph [0011), Wi-Fi node backs off if it successfully decodes preambles in transmissions by other Wi-Fi nodes at an energy level; paragraph [0013], coexistence of nodes can be enhanced if a node according to a first RAT modifies the energy detection threshold in response to detecting another node operating according to a second RAT); and
deactivating, by the node, the relaxed ED threshold (Khawer, Fig. 4, step 440 set energy detection threshold to default value; paragraph [0035], step 440 set energy detection threshold to default value), based on a determination that the portion of medium access deferrals not caused by the default ED threshold does not exceed the time deferral threshold, or based on a successful performance of the access procedure for the unlicensed spectrum, thereby reverting to the default ED threshold (Khawer, Fig. 4, step 415 determines whether presence of other nodes is detected, and presence is not detected upon step 430 detection time interval expires, step 440 set energy detection threshold to default value; paragraph [0035], step 440 set energy detection threshold to default value; paragraph [0035], step 415 determine whether presence of other nodes is detected, and if not, node determines whether detection time interval has expired in step 430; not detecting the presence of other nodes is a successful performing of the channel access procedure; paragraph [0035], step 440 set energy detection threshold to default value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to deactivate the relaxed ED threshold in response to successfully performing the access procedure for the unlicensed spectrum, in the invention of Kakani. The motivation to combine the references would have been to fairly allow channel access.
Kakani does not explicitly disclose determining that a of a WFi access procedure caused by a ED threshold exceeds a predefined period of time corresponding to a maximum Channel Occupancy Time
Hedayat discloses determining that a of a WFi access procedure caused by a not-default ED threshold lasts only for a predefined period of time corresponding to a maximum Channel Occupancy Time (Hedayat, paragraph [0167], new ED threshold remains in effect for one or multiple COTs or a configured time duration).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine whether medium access deferrals due to a not-default ED threshold of Kakani exceed the time that the non-default ED threshold may remain in effect, as in Hedayat. The motivation to combine the references would have been to stop using to the expired ED threshold.
Regarding claim 2, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the node, whether the WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with only one or more neighbor nodes (Kakani, paragraph [0014], AP and associated stations make up a BSS; paragraph [0037], Client_2 measures RSSI of beacon frames from neighbor APs to be above RSSI of beacon frame from associated AP; paragraph [0053], number of legacy devices in neighbor BSS);
disabling, by the node, the relaxed ED threshold based on a determination that the WiFi-enabled supervising node coexists with only the one or more neighbor nodes (Kakani, paragraph [0058], sets CCA threshold to the predetermined default threshold based on CCA information from the neighbor AP); and
performing, by the node, the access procedure for the unlicensed spectrum based on the default ED threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0001], WLAN; paragraph [0002] performing CSMA/CA).
Regarding claim 3, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the default ED threshold is lower in value than the relaxed ED threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0058], set CCA threshold to a value higher than predetermined threshold based on CCA information from the neighbor AP).
Regarding claim 5, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 2. Kakani does not explicitly disclose, but R1-156574 discloses wherein the one or more neighbor nodes are New Radio Unlicensed (NR-U) neighbor nodes (R1-156574, section 2.1 LAA-WIFI coexistence). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coexist with new radio unlicensed nodes, in the invention of Kakani. The motivation to combine the references would have been to improve coexistence with new radio nodes.
Regarding claim 6, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more neighbor supervising nodes correspond to one or more neighbor supervising WiFi nodes and one or more 030284.1855525Qualcomm Ref. No. 195842 supervised WiFi nodes not controlled by a particular supervising WiFi node of the one or more neighbor supervising WiFi nodes (Kakani, paragraph [0001], WLAN; paragraph [0004], BSS, OBSS).
Regarding claim 8, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the user data is received due to the medium access deferrals (Kakani, paragraph [0021], medium sensing before transmitting; paragraph [0037], first, client_2 measures frames from neighbor AP, then after predetermined time period, compute maximum and minimum neighbor RSSI values; paragraph [0057], threshold related information may include data frames transmitted by neighbor AP) (R1-156574, page 3, lines 13-14, when neighbor WiFi node is in transmitting state, use lower ED threshold).
Kakani does not explicitly disclose preventing activation of the relaxed ED threshold based on a determination that the user data is received due to the medium access deferrals.
R1-156574 discloses, further comprising:
preventing activation of the relaxed ED threshold based on a determination that the user data is received due to the medium access deferrals (R1-156574, page 3, lines 13-14, when neighbor WiFi node is in transmitting state, use lower ED threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use lower ED threshold when neighbor WiFi node is in transmitting state, in the invention of Kakani. The motivation to combine the references would have been to reduce interference with the data transmissions.
Regarding claim 9, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the one or more of the medium access deferrals was due to communications between one or more nodes where at least one of the one or more nodes is a supervising node for the one or more nodes (Kakani, paragraph [0027], client_2 receives signal from AP1; paragraph [0028], changes implemented based on RSSI values of signals client_2 receives from AP2 and AP1); and
preventing activation of the relaxed ED threshold based on a determination that the one or more of the medium access deferrals was due to communications between the one or more nodes where at least the one of the one or more nodes is supervising equipment for the one or more nodes (Kakani, paragraph [0058], sets CCA threshold to the predetermined default threshold based on CCA information from the neighbor AP).
Regarding claim 11, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising preventing activation of the relaxed ED threshold for contending supervising equipment corresponding to WiFi-enabled stations (STAs) (Kakani, paragraph [0001], WLAN; paragraph [0058], sets CCA threshold to the predetermined default threshold based on CCA information from the neighbor AP).
Regarding claim 13, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the time deferral threshold corresponds to a maximum time period related to channel sensing (Kakani, paragraph [0021], medium sensing before transmitting; paragraph [0027], threshold for medium occupancy detection; paragraph [0037], first, client_2 measures frames from neighbor AP, then after predetermined time period, compute maximum and minimum neighbor RSSI values).
Kakani does not explicitly disclose that the maximum time period related to channel sensing is called the maximum channel occupancy time (COT)
R1-156574 discloses that the maximum time period related to channel sensing is called the maximum channel occupancy time (COT) used for determining the portion (R1-156574, page 2, line 25, maximum channel occupancy time).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the maximum time period related to channel sensing is called a maximum channel occupancy time (COT), in the invention of Kakani. The motivation to combine the references would have been to known naming conventions.
Hedayat discloses that the maximum time period related to channel sensing is called the maximum channel occupancy time (COT) used for determining the portion (Hedayat, paragraph [0167], new ED threshold remains in effect for one or multiple COTs or a configured time duration).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine whether medium access deferrals due to a not-default ED threshold of Kakani exceed the time that the non-default ED threshold may remain in effect, as in Hedayat. The motivation to combine the references would have been to stop using to the expired ED threshold.
Claim 14 is rejected based on substantially the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 9 and 11, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising lowering the default ED threshold based on detecting an ED-only device (Kakani, paragraph [0029], Client_2 using a CCA threshold higher than CCA_th; paragraph [0042], Client_2 sets its CCA threshold for OBSS separately from its BSS threshold; paragraph [0037], after predetermined time period, compute maximum and minimum neighbor RSSI values; paragraph [0039], after receiving information from client_2, AP2 sends instructions; paragraph [0058], sets CCA threshold to the predetermined default threshold based on CCA information from the neighbor AP).
Regarding claim 20, Kakani in view of R1-156574, and further in view of Khawer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
activating the relaxed ED threshold (Kakani, paragraph [0058], sets CCA threshold to value higher than the predetermined default threshold based on CCA information from the neighbor AP).
Kakani does not explicitly disclose counting a duration corresponding to a length of the one or more medium access deferrals for the duration of the activated ED threshold.
R1-156574 discloses, further comprising:
counting a duration corresponding to a length of one or more medium access deferrals (R1-156574, page 2, paragraph 1, defer period of number of CCA slots counted before starting transmission); and
activating the ED threshold (R1-156574, page 2, last paragraph 1, maximum energy detection threshold) for the duration (R1-156574, page 2, paragraph 1, defer period of number of CCA slots counted before starting transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to count a duration corresponding to a length of the one or more medium access deferrals for the duration of the activated ED threshold, in the invention of Kakani. The motivation to combine the references would have been to set a limit on the amount of time before the channel may be accessed.
Claim 22 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 1. Kakani additionally discloses a transceiver (Kakani, paragraph [0060], transceiver); and a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory (Kakani, paragraph [0013], combinations of hardware and software).
Claim 24 is rejected based on substantially the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 9-11, respectively.
Claim 29 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 30 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, or are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Claim 19 is not indefinite because the term “ED-only” is allegedly defined to mean “a device assumed to use the lower ED-threshold”, in an appendix in Applicant’s provisional application and in paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s Specification. However, this is incorrect. Neither Applicant’s provisional application nor paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s Specification purport to define the term “ED-only.” The appendix in Applicant’s provisional application includes a bullet point that states that “Other Options: ED threshold is lowered when an ED-only device is detected nearby (where the ED-only device is assumed to use the lower ED-threshold).” This statement does not purport to define the meaning of the term “ED-only.” The term “lower ED-threshold” is a relative term and is indefinite. Applicant offers no explanation as to how to determine if a device has a lower ED-threshold.
Applicant asserts that the term ED-only means “ED-based channel sensing without preamble/message detection” – i.e. the NR-U “transmitter sensing only” paradigm, as discussed in paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s published Specification. However, paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s Specification discusses increasing a ED threshold to-62dBm for WiFi nodes, but does not disclose that the increase is based on detecting a type of device, and does not use the term “ED-only,” let alone purport to define a meaning for the term “ED-only.”
Applicant further asserts that the claims are patentable because Kakani does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations, because Kakani does not teach the quantified deferral-portion metric recited in the claims. However, as discussed in the claim rejections, the cited combination of references discloses all of the claim limitations.
Applicant further asserts that the claims are patentable because R1-156574 does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations. However, as discussed in the claim rejections, the cited combination of references discloses all of the claim limitations.
Applicant further asserts that the claims are patentable because Khawer does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations. However, as discussed in the claim rejections, the cited combination of references discloses all of the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LOUIS LINDENBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached on (571) 270-3125. 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.
/ALAN L LINDENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419