[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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, and 13-20 were formerly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) . Pursuant to applicant’s amendments, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Kedem reports buffer capacity rather than a maximum duration calculated from device capability, and that Walton does not remedy that deficiency. That distinction has been considered. The rejection does not rely on Kedem alone for the complete amended limitation. Walton paragraphs [0135]–[0137] identify a receiver-supported limit based on processing and buffering at the applicable PHY rate; paragraphs [0337] and [0389] teach signaling a transmission-time bound. The rejection combines those teachings by calculating the time corresponding to the receiver-supported data amount and conveying that time in Kedem’s capacity information.
The calculated duration in the combination depends on the receiving device’s supported limit at the applicable PHY rate and format. It is not an unrelated scheduling period. Signaling that value lets the peer construct a transmission whose duration respects the receiving device’s processing and buffering capability. The same reasoning applies to the receiving device in claims 1 and 10 and the other receiving device in claims 11 and 20. Kedem paragraphs [00164]–[00166] and [00174] further establish the relationship between the reported reception capacity and the data constructed, transmitted, and received in response. Accordingly, the argument that responsive data is not based on reception-capacity information does not overcome the revised combination.
Applicant also argues that the cited art does not teach the operations associated with multiple transmission cycles in claims 3–4 and 13–14. Claims 3 and 13 are addressed by the separate receiving-side and transmitting-side modifications above. Walton’s known receiver-readiness timing in paragraph [0137], consolidated periodic control in paragraphs [0144]–[0147], and consecutive-frame transmission in paragraph [0131] provide reasons to evaluate the capacities available over the whole reception period. Comparing expected completion with the next cycle starting point identifies when subsequent capacity is relevant to the data amount and duration. This does not require an individual MDU to cross the cycle boundary. Claim 4 is separately addressed by Gollnick’s data-response retry timer, and claim 14 by Zhang’s permission-expiration mechanism as adapted above. The rejections address the respective claimed conditions rather than treating a sequence of A-MPDUs, standing alone, as disclosure of every timing limitation.
References Relied Upon
Kedem et al., WO 2019/143332 A1, published July 25, 2019 (Kedem).
Walton et al., US 2005/0135295 A1, published June 23, 2005 (Walton).
Gollnick et al., US 7,873,343 B2, issued January 18, 2011 (Gollnick).
Kandala, US 7,414,969 B2, issued August 19, 2008 (Kandala).
Zhang et al., US 2019/0069326 A1, published February 28, 2019 (Zhang).
Chen et al., US 2008/0144599 A1, published June 19, 2008 (Chen).
Kedem’s WO publication replaces the CN publication cited in the preceding action. All Kedem paragraph numbers in this action refer to WO 2019/143332 A1. The additional references are applied only in the rejection groups that expressly identify them.
Claim Interpretation
The maximum duration is construed as the permitted duration of data reception determined from the receiving device’s supported capability, including its processing and buffering constraints at the applicable rate. The relevant capability belongs to the receiving communication device in claims 1 and 10 and to the other communication device in claims 11 and 20. The predetermined transmission cycle is a recurring reception and transmission-allocation interval. It need not terminate a transmission opportunity that otherwise remains valid; the specification’s Figure 8 describes continuing reception across the next transmission-cycle starting point. For claims 6 and 15, predetermined normal reception denotes successful reception determined under a predefined acknowledgment convention. These constructions are applied consistently in the following mappings.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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 1, 3, 5–7, 10–11, 13, 15–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedem et al. (WO 2019/143332 A1) in view of Walton et al. (US 2005/0135295 A1).
Regarding claim 1, A communication control device controlling wireless communication of a communication device, comprising a control circuit configured to perform the recited operations. Kedem discloses device 102 and controller 124 controlling the receiving station’s capacity signaling and reception operations (¶¶ [00159], [00164]–[00172]). The controller maps to the control circuit.
Constructing control information including information regarding a reception capacity. Kedem discloses controller 124 constructing a message with first and second capacity-related values and determining updated capacity from current receiver memory for inclusion in an acknowledgment (¶¶ [00159], [00167]–[00172]).
The reception-capacity information indicates a maximum duration of data supported by the communication device. Kedem discloses capacity information but does not expressly disclose this complete duration representation. Walton discloses receiver-supported transmission limits (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]) and a time representation of a maximum permitted PPDU transmission (¶ [0389]; see also duration signaling in ¶ [0337]). Representing Kedem’s receiver-supported limit as a duration is the modification explained below.
The maximum duration is calculated based on a capability of the communication device. Walton ties the receiving limit to receiver processing, buffering, and PHY rate (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]). In the proposed combination, Kedem’s controller 124 calculates the time corresponding to its receiving device’s supported data amount at the applicable rate and format, including overhead, and signals that time. The receiving device’s capability is the input to that calculation.
Controlling transmission of the constructed control information when a transmission opportunity is acquired by random access control with another communication device. Kedem discloses transmission of the capacity message to device 140 (¶¶ [00159], [00169]–[00172]). Those passages do not alone establish the recited contention condition. Walton supplies peer contention and transmission after successful access (¶¶ [0208]–[0211], [0217], [0253]; Figs. 20, 23, 30). The combination applies that access procedure to the station transmitting the capacity advertisement.
Processing data received in a predetermined transmission cycle. Kedem discloses reception and processing by device 102 of the responsive A-MPDU (¶¶ [00164]–[00166]). Walton discloses periodic repetition of the allocation and control procedure (¶ [0147]). Applying that periodic organization to Kedem provides the predetermined recurring reception-allocation interval; the interval does not itself end a still-valid enclosing TXOP.
The received data was transmitted from the other communication device based on the reception-capacity information. Kedem discloses controller 154 constructing and sending the initial A-MPDU within the advertised first value and controlling subsequent transmissions using receiver-capacity feedback (¶¶ [00164]–[00166], [00174], [00187]–[00190]). Thus, the transmitted data amount depends on the receiving station’s capacity information.
Reason to combine and resulting operation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to calculate and communicate the receiver-supported duration using Walton’s receiver limits and time representation in Kedem’s capacity exchange. This lets the peer enforce the receiving device’s processing and buffering limit through a time bound. The calculation accounts for PHY format, overhead, and field quantization and is updated when the rate or receiver limit changes. Applying Walton’s contention access allows the receiver to advertise that bound without a dedicated scheduled allocation; periodic allocation coordinates the ensuing receptions with receiver availability. This is an express proposed modification, not an assertion that every time-based system inherently performs the calculation or that an immediate ACK independently wins contention.
Regarding claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 1, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
When a reception end time of data corresponding to the reception capacity exceeds a predetermined transmission cycle. Kedem supplies initial and subsequent receiver-capacity limits (¶¶ [00159]–[00177], [00240]–[00255]). Walton supplies receiver readiness for a subsequent burst (¶ [0137]), periodic allocation (¶ [0147]), and the relation of rate and time to data amount (¶ [0316]). Neither is asserted to expressly disclose the entire claimed conditional comparison. The proposed controller computes expected completion and compares it with the next allocation boundary.
The control circuit calculates a duration of data reception with a plurality of reception capacities as data to be received. Walton permits consolidated control allocations (¶¶ [0144]–[0147]); Kedem supplies capacity-dependent sizing of successive transmissions (¶¶ [00240]–[00255]). The modification uses the current and next supported allowances when the computed end time crosses the allocation boundary, and calculates the duration for their supported data amount. Walton’s rate-and-time sizing in ¶ [0316] supplies the calculation basis.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Kedem’s controller, in the recurring-interval arrangement of claim 1, to assess the reception allowances available during the whole expected reception period. The controller would calculate the expected end time for the current allowance and compare that time with the next interval boundary. When reception would extend beyond that boundary, it would include the next interval’s supported allowance with the current allowance when determining the data amount and calculate the corresponding reception duration using the applicable rate and format. The resulting duration would be included in the reception-capacity control information. Thus, the same sizing operation is applied to multiple relevant allowances in response to the recited end-time condition.
The reason for the modification is that an exchange extending into the next interval can use capacity available during that interval; considering only the current allowance can unnecessarily limit the exchange. Walton’s consolidated-control technique provides a reason to communicate the joint allowance together, reducing repeated control overhead. The receiver would reserve sufficient storage or use its known processing and readiness timing to support the announced allowances as the data arrives. This accounting avoids adding overlapping measurements of the same free buffer. The combined permission remains bounded by the receiver’s capability and the valid channel-access window.
The expected result is predictable: applying the same rate-and-format calculation to the supported data amount yields its reception duration, while considering all relevant time-indexed allowances accounts for resources available beyond the current interval. The boundary comparison identifies when those later resources become relevant. The rejection relies on that articulated adaptation of capacity control and consolidated signaling, not on an assertion that Kedem expressly discloses the entire sequence or that one MDU must straddle the boundary. The reception-allocation cycle retains the meaning stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 1, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
The control circuit recognizes a reception status of the received data. Kedem discloses receiving and processing data and returning acknowledgment information (¶¶ [00166], [00169]–[00171]). Walton explicitly supplies per-frame acknowledgment status (¶ [0125]).
Reason to combine and resulting operation. Applying Walton’s per-frame status determination to Kedem’s receiving controller would have been obvious to make the capacity-bearing feedback identify which data was successfully received, supporting reliable delivery while communicating the remaining receiver allowance.
Regarding claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 5, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
The control circuit includes information regarding a predetermined normal reception of data in the control information. Kedem places acknowledgment and capacity information in the control message (¶¶ [00169]–[00172]). Walton supplies the predefined per-frame acknowledgment convention (¶ [0125]); a positive indication under that convention identifies successful reception. This is the predetermined normal-reception condition under the claim interpretation above.
Reason to combine and resulting operation. Including that successful-reception indication in Kedem’s capacity-bearing message would have been obvious to communicate reception success and readiness for additional data together. The status indication and the capacity information perform distinct functions.
Regarding claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 5. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 5, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
The control circuit includes information specifying data to be retransmitted in the control information. Kedem permits a Block ACK carrying capacity information (¶¶ [00170]–[00172]). Walton supplies per-frame status and selective-repeat ARQ (¶¶ [0125], [0134]). Kedem’s capacity field alone is not relied upon to identify missing frames.
Reason to combine and resulting operation. Using Walton’s per-frame status in Kedem’s feedback would have been obvious to identify unsuccessfully received frames for selective retransmission while retaining the receiver-capacity limit.
Regarding claim 10
A communication control method performed by a communication control device. Kedem discloses device 102 and controller 124 controlling the receiving station’s capacity signaling and reception operations (¶¶ [00159], [00164]–[00172]). The controller maps to the control circuit performing the method.
Constructing control information including information regarding a reception capacity. Kedem discloses controller 124 constructing a message with first and second capacity-related values and determining updated capacity from current receiver memory for inclusion in an acknowledgment (¶¶ [00159], [00167]–[00172]).
The reception-capacity information indicates a maximum duration of data supported by the communication device. Kedem discloses capacity information but does not expressly disclose this complete duration representation. Walton discloses receiver-supported transmission limits (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]) and a time representation of a maximum permitted PPDU transmission (¶ [0389]; see also duration signaling in ¶ [0337]). Representing Kedem’s receiver-supported limit as a duration is the modification explained below.
The maximum duration is calculated based on a capability of the communication device. Walton ties the receiving limit to receiver processing, buffering, and PHY rate (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]). In the proposed combination, Kedem’s controller 124 calculates the time corresponding to its receiving device’s supported data amount at the applicable rate and format, including overhead, and signals that time. The receiving device’s capability is the input to that calculation.
Controlling transmission of the constructed control information when a transmission opportunity is acquired by random access control with another communication device. Kedem discloses transmission of the capacity message to device 140 (¶¶ [00159], [00169]–[00172]). Those passages do not alone establish the recited contention condition. Walton supplies peer contention and transmission after successful access (¶¶ [0208]–[0211], [0217], [0253]; Figs. 20, 23, 30). The combination applies that access procedure to the station transmitting the capacity advertisement.
Processing data received in a predetermined transmission cycle. Kedem discloses reception and processing by device 102 of the responsive A-MPDU (¶¶ [00164]–[00166]). Walton discloses periodic repetition of the allocation and control procedure (¶ [0147]). Applying that periodic organization to Kedem provides the predetermined recurring reception-allocation interval; the interval does not itself end a still-valid enclosing TXOP.
The received data was transmitted from the other communication device based on the reception-capacity information. Kedem discloses controller 154 constructing and sending the initial A-MPDU within the advertised first value and controlling subsequent transmissions using receiver-capacity feedback (¶¶ [00164]–[00166], [00174], [00187]–[00190]). Thus, the transmitted data amount depends on the receiving station’s capacity information.
Reason to combine and resulting operation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to calculate and communicate the receiver-supported duration using Walton’s receiver limits and time representation in Kedem’s capacity exchange. This lets the peer enforce the receiving device’s processing and buffering limit through a time bound. The calculation accounts for PHY format, overhead, and field quantization and is updated when the rate or receiver limit changes. Applying Walton’s contention access allows the receiver to advertise that bound without a dedicated scheduled allocation; periodic allocation coordinates the ensuing receptions with receiver availability. This is an express proposed modification, not an assertion that every time-based system inherently performs the calculation or that an immediate ACK independently wins contention.
Regarding claim 11
A communication control device controlling wireless communication of a communication device, comprising a control circuit configured to perform the recited operations. Kedem discloses transmitting device 140 and controller 154 receiving capacity information and controlling construction and transmission of data (¶¶ [00161], [00164], [00174], [00187]–[00190]). Controller 154 maps to the control circuit.
Processing predetermined control information received from another communication device. Kedem discloses controller 154 receiving the capacity-related values from device 102 and processing the capacity-bearing acknowledgment to control further transmission (¶¶ [00161], [00174]). The defined capacity-message and acknowledgment fields supply the predetermined control information.
Constructing data to be transmitted based on information regarding a reception capacity of data included in the received control information. Kedem discloses constructing an A-MPDU within the receiver’s advertised value and sizing later data from capacity feedback (¶¶ [00164], [00187]–[00190], [00248]–[00252]).
The reception-capacity information indicates a maximum duration of data supported by the other communication device. Kedem supplies that other device’s capacity but does not expressly supply the complete duration representation. Walton discloses receiver-supported limits (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]) and a time representation of a maximum allowed PPDU (¶ [0389]; see also ¶ [0337]). In the modification, the other receiving device reports its supported allowance as a duration.
The maximum duration is calculated based on a capability of the other communication device. Walton relates supported reception to processing, buffering, and PHY rate (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]). The proposed calculation converts the other receiving device’s supported data limit to a duration at the applicable rate and format, including overhead. Controller 154 uses that reported duration when constructing data; the relevant capability remains that of the other receiving device.
Controlling transmission of the constructed data when a transmission opportunity is acquired by random access control. Kedem supplies construction and transmission of receiver-capacity-bounded data (¶¶ [00164], [00174], [00187]–[00190]). Walton supplies contention followed by transmission upon TXOP acquisition and peer contention (¶¶ [0253], [0217]; Fig. 30). Applying Walton’s access procedure gives the recited transmission condition.
Reason to combine and resulting operation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to express the other receiving device’s supported limit as a duration and have the transmitting controller construct data within that reported bound, thereby enforcing the receiver’s processing and buffering capability through a transmission-time limit. The implementation accounts for PHY format, overhead, and quantization. Using Walton’s contention procedure permits that capacity-compliant data to access the shared medium without a scheduled allocation. This is a stated combination of teachings; it does not attribute the entire amended duration relationship to Kedem alone.
Regarding claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 11. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 11, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
At the timing when the transmission opportunity is acquired, data transmission of the reception capacity exceeds the predetermined transmission cycle. Walton supplies access acquisition (¶ [0253]; Fig. 30), periodic allocation (¶ [0147]), and rate-and-time sizing (¶ [0316]); Kedem supplies capacity-bounded data (¶¶ [00174]–[00190], [00240]–[00255]). The modification evaluates the expected completion at actual access acquisition against the next allocation boundary. The cited passages are not asserted to expressly disclose this entire condition.
The control circuit continuously transmits data up to a next reception capacity under that condition. Walton supplies consecutive frames without gaps (¶ [0131]; Fig. 10), advance receiver readiness (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]), and consolidated periodic control (¶¶ [0144]–[0147]). Kedem supplies successive capacity-based data sizing (¶¶ [00240]–[00255]). The proposed controller uses current and next jointly supported allowances to size the continuing sequence when the boundary condition occurs.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Kedem’s transmitting controller to evaluate, at acquisition of the transmission opportunity, whether sending the current allowance would extend beyond the current reception-allocation interval. If so, the controller would use the current and next allowances covered by the receiver’s consolidated capacity information to determine the supported data amount and continue transmitting through the next allowance. Walton’s consecutive-frame technique would carry that amount as a continuous sequence. The receiver would reserve the joint allowance or provide capacity and readiness information sufficient to support the continuing reception; an intervening capacity-request exchange would therefore not be required for the already-authorized next allowance.
The reason is to use the supported reception capacity available during the actual exchange rather than stop merely because the nominal allocation interval changes. Late acquisition makes the next interval’s resources relevant to sizing the transmission. Consolidating the control permission and using consecutive transmissions reduces avoidable control, access, and preamble overhead. The result is predictable because the same controller already sizes data from a reception limit, and Walton supplies both advance readiness information and the technique for sending consecutive frames. The modification extends the capacity assessment to the subsequent allowance while retaining receiver protection.
The combined data must fit a valid enclosing transmission opportunity and the supported receiver capacity. A recurring allocation boundary may fall within that opportunity; it is not treated as permission to ignore a TXOP, SCAP, or beacon endpoint or to reuse expired capacity information. Nor does “subsequent A-MPDU” itself prove the claimed timing relationship. That relationship results from the expressly stated modification: evaluate the expected completion time at access acquisition and, when it extends beyond the current allocation cycle, continue through the next jointly authorized reception allowance. No individual MDU is required to straddle the boundary.
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 11. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 11, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
The received control information includes information regarding a predetermined normal reception of data. Kedem supplies capacity-bearing acknowledgment information (¶¶ [00169]–[00174]). Walton supplies the predefined per-frame acknowledgment convention (¶ [0125]), whose successful-reception indication maps to predetermined normal reception.
In that case, the control circuit constructs data corresponding to a predetermined reception capacity. Kedem discloses construction of the next A-MPDU using the communicated receiver-capacity limit (¶¶ [00174], [00187]–[00190]). Conditioning the next construction on the successful-reception indication is the proposed application of Walton’s status convention.
Reason to combine and resulting operation. It would have been obvious to condition construction of the next capacity-bounded data on the received indication of successful prior reception to advance the delivery sequence while honoring the receiver’s reported limit. The predetermined capacity is the previously communicated permitted data limit; reception success and capacity permission remain distinct information.
Regarding claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 11. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 11, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
When received control information includes information specifying data to be retransmitted. Kedem supplies a received Block ACK with capacity information (¶¶ [00171]–[00174]); Walton supplies per-frame status and selective-repeat operation (¶¶ [0125], [0134]).
The control circuit specifies undelivered data. Using Walton’s per-frame status, controller 154 identifies unsuccessfully delivered frames for retransmission. This is the proposed status-processing operation; Kedem’s capacity field alone is not treated as identifying missing data.
Reason to combine and resulting operation. Applying the status information to Kedem’s controller would have been obvious to target recovery to the missing frames while keeping further data within the reported receiver allowance.
Regarding claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 16. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 16, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
The control circuit retransmits specified undelivered data together with data to be transmitted. Walton supplies selective-repeat recovery and per-frame status (¶¶ [0125], [0134]), together with consecutive-packet transmission reducing repeated preambles (¶¶ [0139]–[0142]; Fig. 11). Kedem limits the subsequent aggregate using receiver capacity (¶¶ [00248]–[00252]). The proposed combination places retry frames and additional queued frames in the same compliant aggregate or consecutive burst.
It would have been obvious to place frames selected for retransmission together with additional queued frames for the same receiver in the next capacity-compliant aggregate or consecutive-packet burst, when the receiver window and reported capacity permit both. This applies Walton’s expressly stated overhead reduction to packets already selected for delivery under its selective-repeat mechanism. Sending the retry frames and additional frames in the same burst avoids a separate access and preamble exchange for each set while retaining the receiver-capacity restriction. The frames remain individually identifiable for acknowledgment, and their combined size must remain within the capacity-derived duration established for claim 11.
The joint selection is a reasoned modification based on selective-repeat operation and packet consolidation, not an express disclosure of a particular mixed burst. Claim 17 does not require claim 13’s cross-cycle continuation condition.
Regarding claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 16. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 16, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
The control circuit specifies a predetermined reception capacity to be transmitted and data to be retransmitted. Kedem selects aggregate size within received capacity (¶¶ [00248]–[00252]). Walton identifies unsuccessfully delivered frames through reception status and selective-repeat operation (¶¶ [0125], [0134]). Together these supply the data-capacity and retry selections.
Those selections are based on a value in information regarding duration of data reception. Walton’s receiver constraints (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]) and time representation (¶ [0389]) are applied through the capability-derived duration mapping of claim 11. The modification uses that received duration as a shared budget for retry airtime and the additional data that fits; the duration does not itself encode missing-frame identities.
It would have been obvious to apply the received duration as a shared transmission budget: select retry frames identified by reception status, account for their transmission time at the applicable PHY rate and format, and select the additional data capacity that fits the remaining duration, including applicable overhead. Applying one receiver-capability budget to both selections prevents the combined transmission from exceeding the receiver’s supported limit. The duration therefore affects the amount of retry data selected and the additional capacity selected. This is an articulated modification, not an assertion that the references expressly recite the complete selection algorithm.
The received reception status identifies undelivered frames; the duration value constrains which of those frames and how much additional data can be selected. Claim 18’s selection is therefore based on the duration value without treating that value as the sole source of missing-frame identities.
Regarding claim 20
A communication control method performed by a communication device. Kedem discloses transmitting device 140 and controller 154 receiving capacity information and controlling construction and transmission of data (¶¶ [00161], [00164], [00174], [00187]–[00190]). Controller 154 maps to the control circuit performing the method.
Processing predetermined control information received from another communication device. Kedem discloses controller 154 receiving the capacity-related values from device 102 and processing the capacity-bearing acknowledgment to control further transmission (¶¶ [00161], [00174]). The defined capacity-message and acknowledgment fields supply the predetermined control information.
Constructing data to be transmitted based on information regarding a reception capacity of data included in the received control information. Kedem discloses constructing an A-MPDU within the receiver’s advertised value and sizing later data from capacity feedback (¶¶ [00164], [00187]–[00190], [00248]–[00252]).
The reception-capacity information indicates a maximum duration of data supported by the other communication device. Kedem supplies that other device’s capacity but does not expressly supply the complete duration representation. Walton discloses receiver-supported limits (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]) and a time representation of a maximum allowed PPDU (¶ [0389]; see also ¶ [0337]). In the modification, the other receiving device reports its supported allowance as a duration.
The maximum duration is calculated based on a capability of the other communication device. Walton relates supported reception to processing, buffering, and PHY rate (¶¶ [0135]–[0137]). The proposed calculation converts the other receiving device’s supported data limit to a duration at the applicable rate and format, including overhead. Controller 154 uses that reported duration when constructing data; the relevant capability remains that of the other receiving device.
Controlling transmission of the constructed data when a transmission opportunity is acquired by random access control. Kedem supplies construction and transmission of receiver-capacity-bounded data (¶¶ [00164], [00174], [00187]–[00190]). Walton supplies contention followed by transmission upon TXOP acquisition and peer contention (¶¶ [0253], [0217]; Fig. 30). Applying Walton’s access procedure gives the recited transmission condition.
Reason to combine and resulting operation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to express the other receiving device’s supported limit as a duration and have the transmitting controller construct data within that reported bound, thereby enforcing the receiver’s processing and buffering capability through a transmission-time limit. The implementation accounts for PHY format, overhead, and quantization. Using Walton’s contention procedure permits that capacity-compliant data to access the shared medium without a scheduled allocation. This is a stated combination of teachings; it does not attribute the entire amended duration relationship to Kedem alone.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedem et al. (WO 2019/143332 A1) in view of Walton et al. (US 2005/0135295 A1), and further in view of Gollnick et al. (US 7,873,343 B2).
Regarding claim 4,Claim 4 depends from claim 1. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 1, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
After transmission of the control information, data is not received. Kedem and Walton provide the parent claim’s capacity-bearing control message but do not, in the cited passages, expressly establish the complete recovery sequence. Gollnick, col. 47, starts a data-response timer when the receiver sends a POLL and detects absence of a response when that timer expires.
The duration is exceeded. Gollnick, col. 47, sets the timeout beyond the interframe gap plus DATA-frame transmission time. In the proposed combination, the response timeout accommodates the maximum reception duration supplied by amended claim 1 and the necessary response/interframe allowance. Thus, expiration occurs after the indicated reception duration has elapsed.
Under those conditions, the control circuit retransmits the control information. Gollnick, col. 47, increments a retry count and resends the POLL on timeout if the retry limit has not been reached. Applying that recovery to Kedem’s capacity-bearing solicitation supplies retransmission of the retained control information when no responsive data arrives and the duration has been exceeded.
It would have been obvious to apply that recovery sequence to the receiver-originated capacity message of the claim 1 combination. The receiver would retain the transmitted information, start the response timer upon sending it, and retransmit it if no responsive data has arrived by expiration. To accommodate the longest data response it has authorized, the response timeout would be set no shorter than the indicated capability-derived duration, with the necessary response and interframe allowance. Thus, at retry, data has not been received and the indicated duration has been exceeded.
This modification recovers from a lost capacity message or absent data response without prematurely resending while an authorized maximum-length response could still arrive. It applies Gollnick’s response-time sizing to the receiver-supported data limit already calculated in the parent combination. An unsuccessful-response condition alone is not treated as proof that the claimed duration expired.
The phrase “when the duration is exceeded” is met because the indicated reception duration has elapsed when the no-response retry occurs. The modification preserves that duration as the capability-derived data limit and allows the response and interframe time necessary to avoid retrying prematurely.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedem et al. (WO 2019/143332 A1) in view of Walton et al. (US 2005/0135295 A1), and further in view of Kandala (US 7,414,969 B2).
Regarding claim 8,Claim 8 depends from claim 5. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 5, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
The control circuit includes, in the control information, information regarding the maximum duration of data reception. Kedem supplies capacity-bearing feedback and updates (¶¶ [00170]–[00172], [00248]–[00255]). Walton supplies the capability constraint and duration representation incorporated through claims 1 and 5 (¶¶ [0135]–[0137], [0389]). The indicated value in the proposed feedback is the maximum permitted duration for the ensuing reception, bounded by receiver capability.
The maximum duration is according to an amount of data to be retransmitted. Walton supplies reception status and selective-repeat recovery (¶¶ [0125], [0134]). Kandala, Case 2: Burst ACK, equations (6)–(9), calculates allocation time accounting for data quantity and retry burden. Applying that calculation to the identified retry amount supplies the proposed dependence of the feedback duration on retransmission data. Kandala alone is not asserted to disclose the complete receiver-advertised capability maximum.
It would have been obvious to apply that retry-aware calculation when updating the receiver-originated duration in the claim 5 combination: identify the data requiring retransmission from reception status, calculate the airtime for that amount at the applicable PHY rate and format, and include that requirement when determining the maximum permitted duration of the next reception. The receiver must still limit the resulting permission to its supported processing and buffer capacity. Accounting for the known retry amount makes the advertised allowance responsive to recovery traffic, rather than reserving time solely for new data or an unchanged statistical retry estimate. This accommodates recovery without exceeding the capability-derived bound.
The maximum duration in this combination is the permitted maximum for the ensuing reception, constrained by the receiving device’s capability. Its value may be set below the device’s hardware ceiling to reflect the data, including retry data, that is authorized for that reception. Kandala supplies the retry-sensitive airtime calculation; the receiver-originated feedback placement is the stated modification of Kedem and Walton.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedem et al. (WO 2019/143332 A1) in view of Walton et al. (US 2005/0135295 A1), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0069326 A1).
Regarding claim 14 Claim 14 depends from claim 11. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 11, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
After the control information is received, a transmission opportunity is not acquired before the indicated data-reception duration is exceeded. Kedem limits capacity-permission validity, including at a TXOP endpoint (¶¶ [00197]–[00198], [00202]–[00203]); Walton supplies contention access (¶ [0253]). These teachings do not expressly establish the full claimed pre-acquisition expiration condition. Zhang starts a validity timer upon receipt of a contention-based grant and invalidates the grant on expiration (¶ [0092]). The proposed modification uses the indicated reception-duration budget as that permission lifetime, as explained below.
Under that condition, the control circuit stops performing data transmission. Zhang treats the grant as unavailable after the timer expires (¶ [0092]). In the proposed combination, the transmitting controller stops the pending data-transmission attempt under the expired capacity permission and requires renewed information before a later attempt. This maps the no-access condition and resulting cessation together.
It would have been obvious to apply Zhang’s finite-validity mechanism to the receiver-capacity permission in the claim 11 combination and to use the indicated reception-duration budget as the lifetime of that reception opportunity. The transmitting control circuit would start timing when it processes the received control information and would attempt to obtain access during the indicated interval. If the interval expires without obtaining a transmission opportunity, the circuit would stop the pending data transmission under that permission. A later attempt would require renewed reception-capacity information.
The reason for tying the validity interval to the supported reception duration is to bound an unused reception reservation by the service time of the exchange for which it was made. Keeping that reservation pending longer than one supported exchange would hold receiver resources without delivering the corresponding data. Using the already communicated duration also permits both devices to apply the same limit without signaling a separate validity parameter. This adapts Zhang’s stated resource-reclamation protection to Kedem’s changing receiver capacity, using Walton’s capability-to-duration calculation to set the interval. It is an explicit modification of the combined system, not an assertion that a data-duration limit inherently has an expiration function.
Under this modification, contention waiting consumes part of the reserved interval. If access is obtained before expiration, the transmitted data is limited to what fits the remaining interval and the receiver’s capability. If access has not been obtained when the interval expires, no data is sent under the expired permission. The resulting stop is the cessation of the pending transmission attempt specified by the claim’s no-transmission-opportunity condition. The predictable result is prevention of transmissions based on a stale reception reservation while preserving the parent claim’s capability-derived duration bound.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedem et al. (WO 2019/143332 A1) in view of Walton et al. (US 2005/0135295 A1), and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2008/0144599 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 depends from claim 11. The limitation-by-limitation mapping and reasons for combining the references for claim 11, including its inherited limitations, are incorporated here. The additional limitations are addressed below.
The control circuit stops execution of data transmission during the period after transmission of data corresponding to a predetermined reception capacity until the predetermined transmission cycle. Kedem provides capacity-bounded data construction (¶¶ [00164], [00187]–[00190], [00248]–[00252]); Walton provides periodic allocation (¶ [0147]). Chen supplies accumulation of an airtime quota, inhibition of further transmission upon quota exhaustion, and reset at the next service interval (Figs. 2, 3a, 3b; equation (3); claims 29–31). Chen’s quota is not expressly a receiver reception capacity; the proposed modification sets the gate from the reported receiver-supported allowance and holds it closed until the next cycle begins.
It would have been obvious to apply this interval-based gate to transmission of the predetermined receiver-supported capacity in Kedem as modified by Walton: set the per-cycle permitted data amount from the reported receiver capacity, debit transmission of that data against the allowance, and disable further data transmission once that amount is completed until the next cycle begins. This combines receiver protection with periodic quota enforcement, preventing further transmissions during the interval in which the current reception allowance is exhausted. The stop begins upon completion of the permitted capacity and ends at the next cycle boundary. This connection is a modification, not an assertion that Chen calls its airtime quota a reception capacity.
Both the receiver-capacity limit and the airtime limit are enforced, including checking the next packet before transmission. Reset of the interval gate does not override a continuing receiver-capacity restriction. The stopping operation applies to the capacity-controlled data transmission recited in the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM..
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights