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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims 1, 8, 10, 17 and 19 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 8, 10, 17 and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered. The rejection of claim 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 have been fully considered, a new rejection has been made. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 (See 103 rejection of claims 1 and 10 below).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 6-7, “the one or more station devices” should read “one or more station
devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 19. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230389069 A1 (hereinafter Ciochina), in view of US 20210084667 A1 (hereinafter Bravo) and US 20260149762 A1 (hereinafter Dong).
Regarding claim 1, Ciochina teaches A device, the device comprising processing circuitry
coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to (Ciochina Fig. 10; a second communication device 200 (e.g. an access point, AP).
[0065] Each of the communication devices 100, 200, 300 comprises circuitry 101, 201, 301 configured to perform particular operations. The circuitries may be implemented by a respective processor or computer, i.e. as hardware and/or software, or by dedicated units or components. For instance, respectively programmed processors may represent the respective circuitries 101, 201, 301.
[0017] a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores therein a computer program product, which, when executed by a processor, causes the methods disclosed herein to be performed are provided.):
divide a first PPDU into a plurality of segmented PPDUs (Ciochina Fig. 2 and 3; as shown in Fig. 3, A PPDU is divided into PPDU-part 1 and PPDU-part 2
[0042] FIGS. 2 and 3 show diagrams illustrating the benefit of PPDU truncation with respect to low latency communications.
[0043] the truncation of the PPDU 20 holding non-latency sensitive data into two PPDU parts 21 and 22 allows for a speedy transmission of the PPDU 23 holding the latency sensitive data.);
identify a preemption request from a low latency transmitter of one or more station devices (Ciochina Fig. 6; [0052] A first scenario using downlink (DL) PPDU truncation for DL transmission to a preemptive STA (pSTA) is schematically depicted in FIG. 6. In this scenario the AP (herein also called second communication device) sends a PPDU (herein generally also called starting data unit or sPPDU) towards an initial STA (herein also called third communication device or starting STA, sSTA). At a certain point during the sPPDU transmission, the upper layers of the AP indicate the need to send high priority data to a different STA (herein also called first communication device or pSTA). );
Ciochina does not explicitly teach insert a plurality of time gaps between the plurality of segmented PPDUs, wherein the plurality of time gaps enable preemptive opportunities by a low latency transmitter; identify a preemption request from a low latency transmitter of one or more station devices during a first time gap between a first segmented PPDU and a second segmented PPDU; and preempt the second segmented PPDU based on a preemption bit, wherein the first segmented PPDU comprises the preemption bit to indicate whether the second segmented PPDU is preemptable, wherein the first segmented PPDU and the second segmented PPDU are consecutive, in order to allow the low latency transmitter to transmit its low latency data.
Bravo in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches insert a plurality of time gaps between the plurality of segmented PPDUs, wherein the plurality of time gaps enable preemptive opportunities by a low latency transmitter (Bravo [0035] Solutions are proposed to optimize the low latency applications. define a TXOP that can be a larger value than today, but with a requirement to create a preemption period between transmission durations within the TXOP to give opportunity for high priority traffic to preempt the wireless channel during the TXOP.
[0037] As shown in FIG. 2, the TXOP includes four transmission durations, each of which is 2 ms, there is a preemption period between every two neighboring transmission durations, and the preemption period may be a duration which is very short so that only a STA having very high priority traffic to transmit could gain the wireless channel during the preemption period. Note: transmission durations corresponds to transmissions of plurality of segmented PPDUs.);
identify a preemption request from a low latency transmitter of one or more station devices during a first time gap between a first segmented PPDU and a second segmented PPDU (Bravo Fig. 4; [0053] As shown in FIG. 4, the method 400 may include: 5402, receiving information about a TXOP, wherein the TXOP includes two or more transmission durations and a preemption period exists between any two neighboring transmission durations of the two or more transmission durations; and S404, during the preemption period, preempting a wireless channel, which is originally occupied by a holder STA of the TXOP, to transmit high priority traffic.
[0054] the method 400 may be implemented by an AP STA or a non-AP STA to optimize low latency applications and high throughput applications when the two types of application share the wireless channel. In other words, the method 400 may be implemented by a competing STA having high priority traffic to transmit.
[0061] some competing STAs that have high priority traffic to transmit and are eligible to contend for the wireless channel would transmit a frame including only STF after a predetermined time (for example, SIFS) from the start of the preemption period.).
By modifying Ciochina’s teachings of identify a preemption request from a low latency transmitter of one or more station devices;
with Bravo’s teachings of insert a plurality of time gaps between the plurality of segmented PPDUs, wherein the plurality of time gaps enable preemptive opportunities by a low latency transmitter; identify a preemption request from a low latency transmitter of one or more station devices during a first time gap between a first segmented PPDU and a second segmented PPDU,
the modification results in
insert a plurality of time gaps between the plurality of segmented PPDUs, wherein the plurality of time gaps enable preemptive opportunities by a low latency transmitter; identify a preemption request from a low latency transmitter of the one or more station devices during a first time gap between a first segmented PPDU and a second segmented PPDU;
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciochina with Bravo’s above teachings. The motivation is optimizing the low latency applications (Bravo [0035]).
Dong in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches preempt the second segmented PPDU based on a preemption bit, wherein the first segmented PPDU comprises the preemption bit to indicate whether the second segmented PPDU is preemptable, wherein the first segmented PPDU and the second segmented PPDU are consecutive, in order to allow the low latency transmitter to transmit its low latency data (Dong [0033] When there is a need for the AP to transmit low-latency service data, at the moment when the need for transmitting the low-latency service data is determined, the PPDU to be sent for transmitting the non-low-latency service data within the TXOP is determined as the first PPDU. The first PPDU includes a first identification bit, and the first identification bit is used to indicate that a PPDU for transmitting the low-latency service data is sent after sending the first PPDU within the TXOP. That is, the first identification bit is used to indicate that the AP needs to preempt the next channel used for transmitting the non-low-latency service data in order to transmit the low-latency service data.
Note: the first PPDU is the first segmented PPDU; the next channel used for transmitting the non-low-latency service data is the second segmented PPDU.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciochina as modified by Bravo with Dong’s above teachings. The motivation is transmitting low-latency service data during a process of transmitting consecutively non-low-latency service data (Dong [0004]).
Claim 19 recites similar limitations of claim 1, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Regarding claim 10, Ciochina teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations comprising (Ciochina [0017] a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores therein a computer program product, which, when executed by a processor, causes the methods disclosed herein to be performed are provided.): (for the rest of claim 10, see Ciochina and Bravo and Dong cited above for the rejection of claim 1.).
Regarding claim 4, Ciochina in view of Bravo and Dong (hereinafter combination) teaches The
device of claim 1.
Although Ciochina teaches the low latency transmitter (Ciochina Fig. 6, 7; pSTA), Ciochina does not explicitly teach the preemption request is generated by the low latency transmitter.
Bravo teaches wherein the preemption request is generated by the low latency transmitter (Bravo Fig. 4; [0053] As shown in FIG. 4, the method 400 may include: 5402, receiving information about a TXOP, wherein the TXOP includes two or more transmission durations and a preemption period exists between any two neighboring transmission durations of the two or more transmission durations; and S404, during the preemption period, preempting a wireless channel, which is originally occupied by a holder STA of the TXOP, to transmit high priority traffic.
[0054] the method 400 may be implemented by an AP STA or a non-AP STA to optimize low latency applications and high throughput applications when the two types of application share the wireless channel. In other words, the method 400 may be implemented by a competing STA having high priority traffic to transmit.
[0061] some competing STAs that have high priority traffic to transmit and are eligible to
contend for the wireless channel would transmit a frame including only STF after a predetermined time (for example, SIFS) from the start of the preemption period.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Bravo’s above teachings. The motivation is optimizing the low latency applications (Bravo [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches The device of claim 1.
Bravo teaches wherein the low latency transmitter is an access point (AP) or a station device
(STA) (Bravo Fig. 4; [0053] As shown in FIG. 4, the method 400 may include: 5402, receiving information about a TXOP, wherein the TXOP includes two or more transmission durations and a preemption period exists between any two neighboring transmission durations of the two or more transmission durations; and S404, during the preemption period, preempting a wireless channel, which is originally occupied by a holder STA of the TXOP, to transmit high priority traffic.
[0054] the method 400 may be implemented by an AP STA or a non-AP STA to optimize low latency applications and high throughput applications when the two types of application share the wireless channel. In other words, the method 400 may be implemented by a competing STA having high priority traffic to transmit.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Bravo’s above teachings. The motivation is optimizing the low latency applications (Bravo [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches The device of claim 1.
Ciochina does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to
determine a second time gap between the second segmented PPDU and a third segmented PPDU.
Bravo teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a second time
gap between the second segmented PPDU and a third segmented PPDU (Bravo Fig. 2; [0037] As shown in FIG. 2, the TXOP includes four transmission durations, each of which is 2 ms, there is a preemption period between every two neighboring transmission durations, and the preemption period may be a duration which is very short so that only a STA having very high priority traffic to transmit could gain the wireless channel during the preemption period.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Bravo’s above teachings. The motivation is optimizing the low latency applications (Bravo [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches The device of claim 6.
Ciochina does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine a time when a second preemption request is received; determine the time is greater than the second time gap; and prevent preemption of the third segmented PPDU.
Bravo teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a time when
a second preemption request is received; determine the time is greater than the second time gap; and prevent preemption of the third segmented PPDU (Bravo [0061] some competing STAs that have high priority traffic to transmit and are eligible to contend for the wireless channel would transmit a frame including only STF after a predetermined time (for example, SIFS) from the start of the preemption period. If the holder STA of the TXOP (that stopped its TXOP to offer the preemption period) didn't receive the frame including only STF before the end of the preemption period, it would be able to use the wireless channel again and still uses the TXOP.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Bravo’s above teachings. The motivation is optimizing the low latency applications (Bravo [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches The device of claim 1.
Ciochina does not explicitly teach wherein the first time gap is a short inter-frame space (SIFS) or
point coordination function IFS (PIFS), between the first PPDU and the second PPDU
Bravo teaches wherein the first time gap is a short inter-frame space (SIFS) or point coordination
function IFS (PIFS), between the first PPDU and the second PPDU (Bravo [0051] when none of the one or more STAs accesses the wireless channel after a first predetermined time from the start of the preemption period, determining that none of the one or more STAs gains the wireless channel during the preemption period. That is, if none of the one or more STAs accesses the wireless channel after the first predetermined time (for example, Short Interframe Space (SIFS)+2 slots) from the start of the preemption period, the holder STA of the TXOP regains the wireless channel.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Bravo’s above teachings. The motivation is optimizing the low latency applications (Bravo [0035]).
Claims 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 recite similar limitations of claims 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 respectively, are thus rejected under similar rational.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of
claim 10.
Dong teaches wherein the first segmented PPDU comprises the preemption bit to indicate whether the second segmented PPDU is preemptable, wherein the first segmented PPDU and the second segmented PPDU are consecutive (Dong [0033] When there is a need for the AP to transmit low-latency service data, at the moment when the need for transmitting the low-latency service data is determined, the PPDU to be sent for transmitting the non-low-latency service data within the TXOP is determined as the first PPDU. The first PPDU includes a first identification bit, and the first identification bit is used to indicate that a PPDU for transmitting the low-latency service data is sent after sending the first PPDU within the TXOP. That is, the first identification bit is used to indicate that the AP needs to preempt the next channel used for transmitting the non-low-latency service data in order to transmit the low-latency service data.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Dong’s above teachings. The motivation is transmitting low-latency service data during a process of transmitting consecutively non-low-latency service data (Dong [0004]).
Claim 20 recite similar limitations of claim 11, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciochina in view of Bravo and Dong as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of EP 3937408 A1 (hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches The device of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach the preemption bit is set to 1 to indicate that an
associated segmented PPDU from the plurality of segmented PPDUs is preemptable and set to 0 to indicate that the associated segmented PPDU from the plurality of segmented PPDUs is not preemptable.
Yu in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the preemption bit is set to 1 to indicate that an associated segmented PPDU from the plurality of segmented PPDUs is preemptable and set to 0 to indicate that the associated segmented PPDU from the plurality of segmented PPDUs is not preemptable (Yu [0104] In a first possible implementation, the preemption indication information is located in the reserved bit field. If the reserved bit field is a first value, it indicates that the preemption mechanism occurs. If the reserved bit field is a second value, it indicates that the preemption mechanism does not occur. The second value is different from the first value. For example, when the reserved bit field is 1, it indicates that the preemption mechanism occurs. When the reserved bit field is 0, it indicates that the preemption mechanism does not occur. ).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Yu’s above teachings. The motivation is reducing transmission latency of the data frame with a relatively high service priority (Yu [0055]).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations of claim 3, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciochina in view of Bravo and Dong as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of WO 2023072584 A1 (hereinafter Ciochina2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches The device of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured
to cause to send a request to send (RTS) frame to a first station device, wherein the RTS frame comprises a transmit opportunity (TXOP) preemption bit.
Ciochina2 in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause to send a request to send (RTS) frame to a first station device, wherein the RTS frame comprises a transmit opportunity (TXOP) preemption bit (Ciochina2 [0034] If the AP knows before obtaining a TXOP that an LL transmission may be needed to be performed (this information may be known in advance by indication from the pSTA or by establishing an active LL TS session with the pSTA), then the TXOP may be obtained to accommodate both kinds of traffic: e.g., with MU RTS for sSTA and pSTA or with an enhanced RTS-type frame. If the AP does not know beforehand the exact pSTA (sometimes also referred to as LL STA, i.e. , STA having low latency traffic), which may require the high priority traffic during the current TXOP, then it may indicate within the user specific field of the MU RTS or enhanced RTS a group AID defined for a set of pSTAs. Additional information may be included within the MU RTS or enhanced RTS such as the fact that the current TXOP may be truncatable.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Ciochina2’s above teachings. The motivation is improving latency for real time application (Ciochina2 [0091]).
Claim 17 recites similar limitations of claim 8, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Z Sun whose telephone number is (571)270-0750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800am-0500pm.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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.
/D.Z.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 /Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights