DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 recites “the STA in communicating with other STAs on the network”. For clarity purposes, it is suggested to recite as “the STA in communications with other STAs on the network”.
Claim 1 line 11 recites “with other STAs”. For clarity purposes and consistency within terms, it is suggested to recite as “with the other STAs”.
Claim 1 recites “to replace a previously received set of regular (conventional non-adaptive) EDCA parameters”. For clarity purposes, it is suggested not to use parentheses and select one term to define the set of EDCA parameters. Similar objection applies to claims 16 and 21.
Claim 1 recites “the actual RTA remaining lifetime”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to define “actual RTA remaining lifetime” earlier in the claim. Similar objection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1, pg. 3 line 7, recites “the new RTA adaptive enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameter set”. For clarity purposes and to maintain consistency within terms it is suggested to recite as “the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set”. Similar objection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1, pg. 3 line 9-10, recites “the new RTA adaptive enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameters”. For clarity purposes and to maintain consistency within terms it is suggested to recite as “the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set”. Similar objection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 22 recites “may be received”. Language that suggests or makes optional (i.e., may be) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10 and 14-22 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.
Claim 1 recites “non-adaptive”. The specification discloses “Adaptive EDCA Parameter Set” (see specification [0307]). However, nowhere in applicant’s disclosure does it disclose “non-adaptive” EDCA parameters. Accordingly, the amendment is not supported by the specification.
Claim 22 recites “original EDCA parameter set”. The specification discloses “Adaptive EDCA Parameter Set” (see specification [0307]). However, nowhere in applicant’s disclosure does it disclose “original EDCA parameter set”. Accordingly, the amendment is not supported by the specification.
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 1-4, 6-7, 10 and 14-23 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 line 12 recites “wherein said instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps of the IEEE 802.11 protocol for the STA, comprising: (i) receiving…” It is unclear if applicant intends to claim the already existing protocol of IEEE 802.11 that already comprises the steps claimed (which would not be novel and deemed as admitted prior art) or if the claim is simply performing the novel steps in an IEEE 802.11 network. Such ambiguity renders the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claim 22.
Claim 1 recites “regular (conventional non-adaptive) EDCA parameters”. The claimed term "regular" is indefinite as it is a relative term and lacks some standard for measuring the degree intended for something to be regular, or what would make the EDCA regular. Similar rejection applies to claims 16 and 21.
Claim 1, pg. 3 line 5, recites “adapting the EDCA parameter set”. It is unclear as to which EDCA parameter set it is being referred to as two have been introduced earlier in the claim (e.g., 1. new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set 2. set of regular (conventional non-adaptive) EDCA parameters), rendering the claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claims 22-23.
Claim 1, pg. 3 line 11, recites “from the RTA adaptive enhanced EDCA parameters”. It is unclear as to which EDCA parameters it is being referred to as two have been introduced earlier in the claim (e.g., 1. new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set 2. set of regular (conventional non-adaptive) EDCA parameters), rendering the claim indefinite. If it is directed to the new RTA, the examiner suggested maintaining consistency within terms and recite as “from the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set”. Similar rejection applies to claim 22.
Claim 1 recites “the MSDU”. It is unclear as to which MSDU it is being referred to as a plurality of MSDUs have been introduced earlier in the claim. Similar rejection applies to claim 23.
Claim 1 recites “it was received”. It is unclear as to what is being referred to as “it”. The examiner suggests consistency within terminology and avoid pronoun terms. Additionally, it is unclear as to when it was received, there is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation in the claim. Similar rejection applies to claims 6, 21 and 23.
Claim 22 recites “receiving a new real time application (RTA) adaptive enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameter set, and comprising multiple values for RTA…”. It is unclear as to what is “comprising multiple values for RTA…”. The examiner suggest clarifying as it shows on claim 1. Similar rejection applies to claim 23.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the STA later performs an RTA adapt reset in which the EDCA parameters in use revert from the new RTA adaptive EDCA parameter set back to their original EDCA parameter set”. It is unclear as to which “EDCA parameter set” it is being referred to as two have been introduced earlier in the claim. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “back to their original EDCA parameter set”, it is suggested to introduce “original EDCA parameter set” earlier in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10 and 14-23 would be allowable once the objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(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, 1-4, 6-7, 10 and 14-23 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
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
Prosecution Insights