DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS submitted on 09/18/2025 has been entered and considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10 and 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the WLAN”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to introduce “WLAN” earlier in the claim. Similar objection applies to claim 22.
Claim 1 recites “wherein said STA can switch to using the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set, and/or dynamically adjusting settings within the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set” … “can utilize”. Language (e.g., can) that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. Such clauses may render parts of the claims optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04). Similar objection applies to claims 10 and 22-23.
Claim 1 recites “the RTA remaining lifetime of buffered MSDUs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to introduce “RTA remaining lifetime of buffered MSDUs” earlier in the claim. Similar objection applies to claim 23.
Claim 1 recites “the initial RTA remaining lifetime of the MSDU”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to introduce “initial RTA remaining lifetime of the MSDU” earlier in the claim. Similar objection applies to claim 23.
Claim 7 recites “said RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to introduce “RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set element” earlier in the claim. Similar objection applies to claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the network”. It is unclear which network it is being referred to as three networks have been introduced earlier in the claim (see lines 1, 4-5 that recite “a network” “an IEEE 802.11 network” and “an IEEE 802.11 network”, respectively). Similar rejection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1 recites “said STA” and “the STA”. It is unclear which STA it is being referred to as two STAs have been introduced earlier in the claim (see lines 4-5 that recite “a wireless station (STA)”).
Claim 1 recites “An apparatus for wireless communication in a network, the apparatus comprising: (a) a wireless communication circuit configured for operating in an IEEE 802.11 network as a wireless station (STA), performing transmission of frames between medium access control (MAC) layers of an IEEE 802.11 network as a wireless station (STA) for wirelessly communicating with other STAs on the network”. It is unclear if the wireless communication circuit is “performing transmission of frames”, rendering the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1 recites “perform steps of a wireless communications protocol for said wireless communication circuit, comprising: … (ii) wherein multiple threshold levels are utilized for grading the RTA remaining lifetime of buffered MSDUs, wherein different applications can utilize one of said multiple threshold levels according to its grading;”. It is unclear if “grading the RTA remaining lifetime” is meant to be the step to be performed in this limitation. If grading is a step to be performed by the wireless communication circuit/apparatus it should be recited in a limiting way as “for grading” is intended use language and do not further limit the claim. Similar rejection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1 recites “perform steps of a wireless communications protocol for said wireless communication circuit, comprising: … (iv) wherein maximum backoff, when performing carrier sense multiple access/collision avoidance (CSMA/CA), using said new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set is less than the initial RTA remaining lifetime of the MSDU.” It is unclear if “performing CSMA/CA” is one of the steps to be performed by the wireless communication circuit/apparatus, rendering the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claim 23.
Claim 1 recites “(i) performing communications utilizing a new real time application (RTA) adaptive enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameter set, which defines new EDCA parameters based on access class (AC) and the RTA remaining lifetime of buffered MAC service data units (MSDUs), wherein said STA can switch to using the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set, and/or dynamically adjusting settings within the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set, including access categories (ACs) and RTA remaining lifetime threshold;”. It is unclear if defining in the limitation of “defines new EDCA parameters based on access class (AC) and the RTA remaining lifetime of buffered MAC service data units (MSDUs)” is a step to be performed by the wireless communication circuit/apparatus, or if it is a result/intended use of “new RTA EDCA parameter set”, which would have no patentable weight, rendering the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1 recites “wherein said STA can switch to using the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set, and/or dynamically adjusting settings within the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set”. It is unclear if “switch” and “dynamically adjusting” are steps to be performed by the wireless communication circuit/apparatus or the STA, rendering the claim indefinite. If all the units (e.g., the wireless communication circuit, apparatus and the STA) are the same entity, it is suggested to use and maintain consistency within term usage.
Claim 1 recites “wherein said STA can switch to using the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set, and/or dynamically adjusting settings within the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set, including access categories (ACs) and RTA remaining lifetime threshold;”. It is unclear what is meant by “including access categories (ACs) and RTA remaining lifetime threshold”, or what entity/step includes these features, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “wherein different applications can utilize one of said multiple threshold levels according to its grading”. It is unclear if the applications are part of the apparatus performing a function, or if the applications are a separate entity. If the applications are a separate entity, this limitation would have no weight as it does not further limit the structure/functionality of the apparatus being claimed in the preamble. Similar rejection applies to claim 23.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the STA determines to use the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set”. It is unclear if the STA is or part of the apparatus or wireless communication circuit being claimed. If the STA is a different entity, said limitation would have no weight as it would not further limit the structure/functionality of the preamble. If the STA is the apparatus or wireless communication circuit, it is suggested to use the same terminology when referring to the same units as it raises clarity issues and indefiniteness. Similar rejection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1 recites “(iii) wherein as time passes an RTA remaining lifetime for an MSDU within the buffered MSDUs decreases to reach a new RTA remaining lifetime threshold level”. It is unclear if the “decreases” is one of the steps to be performed by the wireless communication circuit/apparatus. It does not appear to be tied to a step to be performed by the wireless communication circuit, rendering the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1 recites “wherein maximum backoff”. It is unclear what said limitation means, there appears to be missing terms to clarify the limitation, rendering the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claim 23.
Claim 1 recites “wherein maximum backoff, when performing carrier sense multiple access/collision avoidance (CSMA/CA), using said new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set is less than the initial RTA remaining lifetime of the MSDU”. It is unclear if “performing CSMA/CA” is one of the steps to be performed by the wireless communication circuit/apparatus. It does not appear to be tied to a step to be performed by the wireless communication circuit, rendering the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claim 23.
Claim 1 recites “wherein maximum backoff, when performing carrier sense multiple access/collision avoidance (CSMA/CA), using said new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set is less than the initial RTA remaining lifetime of the MSDU”. It is unclear how a comparison is being made with two distinct features/units. It is unclear how parameter set is less than RTA remaining lifetime, rendering the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claim 23.
Claim 5 recites “wherein determination of RTA remaining lifetime threshold levels is application dependent”. It is unclear how this limitation is tied to the structure or functionality of the apparatus of claim 1. It is unclear if it is a further step to be performed by the wireless communication circuit or not, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “automatically adjusting the EDCA parameters corresponding to a new AC or RTA remaining lifetime threshold level, without negotiating with an associated AP, in response to determining that the RTA remaining lifetime of the buffered MSDU of an AC has decreased to a certain threshold level”. It is unclear as to which structure of the apparatus of claim 1 is performing the adjusting and determining functions/steps, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “wherein different RTA remaining lifetime threshold levels of the buffered RTA MSDU of the same AC are selected as dependent on application to which the STA is performing”. It is unclear as to which structure of the apparatus of claim 1 is performing the selecting function/step, or if it’s a result of performing claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising determining a duration for applying the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set utilizing an RTA adapt EDCA timer subfield of the RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set”. It is unclear as to which structure of the apparatus of claim 1 is performing the determining function/step, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “The apparatus of claim 14, further comprising switching to communicate utilizing a EDCA of corresponding AC(s) according to values that are contained in a recently received regular EDCA parameter set element”. It is unclear as to which structure of the apparatus of claim 1 is performing the switching function/step, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 16 and 21 recites “regular EDCA parameter set element” and “the regular EDCA”, respectively. The claimed term "regular" is indefinite as it lacks some standard for measuring the degree intended for something to be regular, or what would make the EDCA regular.
Claim 17 recites “The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising said STA communicating utilizing different RTA adaptive EDCA parameter sets as configured for different applied groups”. It is unclear if the STA is the apparatus or comprises the wireless communication circuit. If it is a different entity, the claim does not further limit the claim as it does not further limit the apparatus being claimed. If the STA is the apparatus, then it is suggested to use consistency within terms throughout the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 would be allowable once the objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are addressed and overcome. Claim 1 would be allowable because the prior art of record cited below, under “pertinent prior art” section, disclose the claim limitations in part, for example utilizing EDCA parameters, real-time application (RTA) and access categories (AC). However, the cited prior art of record, taken alone or in combination do not disclose, fairly suggest or render obvious the remaining features, when viewed as a whole, in independent claim 1. Similar reasoning would apply to independent claims 22 and 23. Therefore, claims 1-23 would be allowable.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record below is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Lu et al. (US 2024/0251443 A1) discloses setting different EDCA parameters and/or adjusting EDCA backoff rules to ensure the TWT scheduled station can perform the low latency service transmission of a specified AC or TID in a specific TWT service period, and at the same time, fairness of access of the stations in the BSS is considered (see paragraphs [0061] and [0171]).
Le Houerou et al. (US 2024/0040621 A1) discloses the AP can update the AC parameters at any time by using the QoS Info field 216. The QoS Info field 216 contains the EDCA Parameter Set Update Count subfield, which is initially set to 0 and is incremented each time any of the AC parameters changes (see paragraph [0116]). Le Houerou also discloses dynamically updating EDCA parameters sets values to be used by non-AP stations joining the BSS (see paragraph [0127]) and forming a new EDCA Parameter Set IE with the modified TXOP limit (in field 215 for each AC) for instance to a predefined TXOP_LL limit value as shown in the table below. The same TXOP_LL limit value may be used throughout the ACs or they may be different one AC from the other (see paragraph [0200]).
Xin et al. (US 2021/0076420 A1) discloses creating a new RTA queue mechanism to reduce the waiting time of RTA packets in the queue (see paragraphs [0012]; [0014]).
Abouelseoud et al. (US 2021/0007137 A1) discloses modifying the time of the basic TIF transmission to reduce the buffer time for the RTA packets or delay the TIF in case the RTA packets is usually delayed (see paragraphs [0276]; [0014]).
Ko et al. (US 2024/0129953 A1) discloses updating the EDCA parameter corresponding to the AC of the QoS data frame according to the second EDCA parameter set (see paragraph [0442]).
Alpert et al. (US 2019/0075575 A1) discloses the blocks 504-510 of FIG. 5 may be performed one or repeatedly until acceptable MU EDCA parameters are agreed upon. At block 618, the example communication scheduler 120 operates (e.g., facilitates operation of the STA 102) using the MU-EDCA according to the EDCA/MU EDCA parameters (e.g., for the AC categories tagged for polling mode) identified in the updated MU EDCA parameters (e.g., in an EDCA/MU EDCA frame). At block 620, the example communication scheduler 120 updates the stored MU EDCA count based on the received MU EDCA count (see paragraphs [0067] and [0047]).
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 MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO whose telephone number is (571)272-1250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM to 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476