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. Claim Objections Claim s 1, 8 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 1, “the device comprising” should read “the device comprising:”. In claim 1, lines 6-7, “the one or more station devices” should read “one or more station devices”. In claim 8, line 2, “send (RTS) frame a first station device” should read “send (RTS) frame to a first station device”. In claim 10, lines 6-7, “the one or more station devices” should read “one or more station devices”. In claim 19, lines 5 - 6 , “the one or more station devices” should read “one or more station devices”. In claim 17, line 2, “send (RTS) frame a first station device” should read “send (RTS) frame to a first station device”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation " a low latency transmitter " in line 5, " a low latency transmitter " in line 6 and " the low latency transmitter " in line s 9-10 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . The examiner interprets “ a low latency transmitter ” in line 6 as “ the low latency transmitter ” for the examination purpose and recommends the correction accordingly. Claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations of claim 1 respectively, are thus rejected under similar rational. Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim s 1 , 10 and 19 . Claim 9 recites the limitation " the first PPDU and the second PPDU " in line 2 . The phrase “the first PPDU” is ambiguous—does it mean “a first PPDU” or specifically “a first segmented PPDU”? The phrase “the second PPDU” is ambiguous—does it mean “a second segmented PPDU” or simply “a second PPDU”? The examiner interprets “the first PPDU” as “the first segmented PPDU ” and “the second PPDU” as “ the second segmented PPDU” for the examination purpose and recommends the correction accordingly. Claim 18 recite similar limitations of claim 9, is thus rejected under similar rational. 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 - 2, 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) . 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 the one or more station devices; and preempt the second segmented PPDU based on a preemption bit in order to allow the low latency transmitter to transmit its low latency data ( 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 ). As a result, after a processing delay ( pDelay ), the sPPDU is truncated, the transmission to the sSTA is stopped and after a given time interval, interframe space (IFS) the AP sends a new PPDU (herein also called preemptive data unit or pPPDU ) to pSTA . In FIG. 6 the duration D is shown, which indicates the originally intended transmission time of the sPPDU to the sSTA 300. Thus, D indicates the duration of the sPPDU in case no truncation is performed. Fig. 3; [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. [0167] Second communication device [0168] wherein the circuitry is configured to [0169] include in a data unit of the ongoing transmission a preemptable indication indicating that the ongoing transmission may be truncated and a preemptive data unit may be received from the first communication device or may be transmitted to the first communication device . ). 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 the one or more station devices during a first time gap between a first segmented PPDU and a second segmented PPDU . 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 the 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 the one or more station devices; and preempt the second segmented PPDU based on a preemption bit in order to allow the low latency transmitter to transmit its low latency data 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 the 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; and preempt the second segmented PPDU based on a preemption bit in order to allow the low latency transmitter to transmit its low latency 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 Ciochina with Bravo’s above teachings. The motivation is optimizing the low latency applications ( Bravo [ 0035 ] ). Known work in one field of endeavor (Bravo prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one ( Ciochina prior art) based on design incentives ( optimizing the low latency applications ) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art. 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 cited above for the rejection of claim 1.). Regarding claim 2 , Ciochina in view of Bravo (hereinafter combination) teaches The device of claim 1 . Ciochina 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 ( Ciochina Fig. 3; [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. [0167] Second communication device [0168] wherein the circuitry is configured to [0169] include in a data unit of the ongoing transmission a preemptable indication indicating that the ongoing transmission may be truncated and a preemptive data unit may be received from the first communication device or may be transmitted to the first communication device. ) . Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations of claim 2 respectively, are thus rejected under similar rational. Regarding claim 4 , the combination teaches The device of claim 1 . 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 .) . The motivation for modification set forth above (Bravo) regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4. 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. ) . The motivation for modification set forth above (Bravo) regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5. Regarding claim 6 , the combination teaches The device of claim 1 . 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. ) . The motivation for modification set forth above (Bravo) regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6. Regarding claim 7 , the combination teaches The device of claim 6 . 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. ) . The motivation for modification set forth above (Bravo) regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7. Regarding claim 9 , the combination teaches The device of claim 2 . 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. ) . The motivation for modification set forth above (Bravo) regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9. 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. Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciochina in view of Bravo 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] ). Known work in one field of endeavor (Yu prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one ( Ciochina and Bravo prior art) based on design incentives (reducing transmission latency of the data frame with a relatively high service priority) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art. 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 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 [00 91 ] ). Known work in one field of endeavor (Ciochina2 prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one ( Ciochina and Bravo prior art) based on design incentives ( improving latency for real time application ) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT David Z Sun whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0750 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Moo Jeong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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