DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 03/19/2023, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues, see Pg. 4, 7 of filed Remarks, that Pascal does not teach the recited “set End to End (E2E) Quality of Service (QoS) information in a Stream Classification Service (SCS) descriptor element …”, “transmit an SCS request to an AP, the SCS request…”, specifically the first non-AP STA to transmit an AP E2E QoS information to indicate the E2E QoS …between the first non-AP STA and a second non-AP STA, by asserting that Pascal’s teaching is fundamentally different from and teaches away from the recited technique above, and further states that many different technical solutions are used to implement the E2E QoS signaling mechanism.
Examiner cannot concur. First, regardless of whether TLDS is a fundamentally different technique from the recited technique above, the cited teaching in Pg. 22, Ln. 30-35 and Pg. 1, Ln. 36 to Pg. 2, Ln. 14 of Pascal in combination addresses each and every limitation recited. Thus, it is irrelevant whether TLDS is a different technique or not. In addition, the fact that E2E QoS signaling mechanism is implemented in many different solutions does not preclude the technique introduced by Pascal. Furthermore, as taught clearly in Pg. 1, Ln. 36 to Pg. 2, Ln. 14, QoS characteristic element is defined for SCS stream to be communicated/transmitted to an AP from a first non-AP station.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pascal (WO 2023203065 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pascal discloses, in a first embodiment, an apparatus comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause a first non Access Point (AP) (non-AP) wireless communication station (STA) to (Pascal; Pg. 22, Ln. 30-35. A system of logic and circuitry, is used to cause a first non-AP wireless STA (initiator peer) to communicate with a second non-AP wireless STA (partner peer).):
set End to End (E2E) Quality of Service (QoS) information, the E2E QoS information configured to indicate an E2E QoS requirement for an E2E traffic flow to be communicated between the first non-AP STA and a second non-AP STA (Pascal; Pg. 22, Ln. 30-35. P2P/E2E QoS information is set, used to indicate an E2E/P2P QoS requirement for traffic flow via TDLS between a first non-AP STA and a second non-AP STA.), but set End to End (E2E) Quality of Service (QoS) information in a Stream Classification Service (SCS) descriptor element, transmit an SCS request to an AP, the SCS request comprising the SCS descriptor element.
However, Pascal teaches, in a second embodiment, Quality of Service (QoS) information in a Stream Classification Service (SCS) descriptor element (Pascal; Pg. 1, Ln. 36 to Pg. 2, Ln. 14. QoS information is set in a SCS descriptor element.),
transmit an SCS request to an AP, the SCS request comprising the SCS descriptor element (Pascal; Pg. 1, Ln. 36 to Pg. 2, Ln. 14. An SCS request is sent to an AP, including the SCS descriptor, see Fig. 4.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of the first embodiment of Pascal to adapt a stream classification approach, by incorporating the teaching in a second embodiment wherein QoS information is included in SCS descriptor, for the motivation to perform P2P transmission within restricted TWT period (Pascal; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 2, Pascal teaches in another embodiment the E2E QoS information comprises E2E latency bound information configured to indicate an E2E latency bound for the E2E traffic flow to be communicated between the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA (Pascal; Pg. 22, Ln. 27 to Ln. 35. P2P QoS related TID is used to indicate latency sensitivity forming a bound for allowing traffic streams meeting QoS.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of the first embodiment of Pascal to adapt a stream classification approach, by incorporating the teaching in another embodiment wherein latency classification is indicated in accordance with QoS, for the motivation to perform P2P transmission within restricted TWT period (Pascal; Abstract.).
Claims 19-20 are directed to a product comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions operable to, when executed by at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 1-2, and are non-patentable over the prior art as previously indicated.
Claims 3-5, 8, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascal (WO 2023203065 A1) in view of Guignard (US Pub. 20250280441 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Pascal teaches the E2E QoS information (Pascal; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.), but the E2E QoS information comprises a destination STA address to identify an address of the second non-AP STA.
However, Guignard teaches the E2E QoS information comprises a destination STA address to identify an address of the second non-AP STA (Guignard; Para. [0033-34]. P2P/E2E QoS information includes AID/address information for a peer non-AP station.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the communication system of modified Pascal to adapt a stream classification approach, by incorporating the teaching of Guignard wherein AID/address are used for QoS information, for the motivation to perform P2P transmission within restricted TWT period (Pascal; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Pascal teaches the E2E QoS information comprises a directionality indicator to indicate whether the E2E traffic flow comprises a unidirectional stream (Guignard; Para. [0137, 141]. P2PE2E QoS information includes a direction subfield indicating the traffic flow is a unidirectional stream.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Pascal teaches the E2E QoS information comprises processing delay information to indicate a processing delay of the first non-AP STA to process data of the E2E traffic flow (Guignard; Para. [0142]. P2P/E2E QoS information include other QoS characteristics element indicating delay bound associated with a first non-AP station and a second non-AP station.).
Regarding claim 8, modified Pascal teaches cause the first non-AP STA to set the E2E QoS information in a QoS characteristics element in the SCS descriptor element (Guignard; Para. [0141-143]. P2P/E2E QoS information is set in QoS element of SCS descriptor element by at least a first non-AP station for P2P/E2E communication.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Pascal further teaches cause the first non-AP STA to set an address of the second non-AP STA in a destination STA address field in the QoS characteristics element (Guignard; Para. [0033-34]. P2P/E2E QoS information includes AID/address information field for a peer non-AP station.).
Regarding claim 13, modified Pascal further teaches cause the first non-AP STA to set the E2E QoS information in an E2E QoS field of the SCS descriptor element (Guignard; Para. [0143]. P2P/E2E QoS information is set in an P2P/E2E QoS field in SCS descriptor element by a non-AP/initiator station.).
Regarding claim 14, modified Pascal further teaches the E2E traffic flow comprises a traffic flow to be communicated via the AP (Guignard; Fig. 8. P2P/E2E traffic flow includes a traffic flow via AP, see 216.).
Regarding claim 15, modified Pascal further teaches the E2E traffic flow comprises a traffic flow to be communicated via a Peer-to-peer (P2P) link between the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA (Guignard; Fig. 8. P2P traffic flow includes a traffic flow to be communicated via a P2P/E2E between a first non-AP station and a second non-AP station, see 216 or 846.).
Regarding claim 16, modified Pascal further teaches the E2E traffic flow comprises a bidirectional traffic flow to be communicated via a first unidirectional flow and a second unidirectional flow (Guignard; Fig. 8. P2P/E2E includes a bidirectional traffic flow to be communicated via a first unidirectional flow and a second unidirectional flow, see 846 and 847.), wherein the first unidirectional flow is from the first non- AP STA to the second non-AP STA (Guignard; Fig. 8. A first unidirectional flow is from a first non-AP station to a second non-AP station), and the second unidirectional flow is from the second non-AP STA to the first non-AP STA (Guignard; Fig. 8. A second unidirectional flow is from a second non-AP station to a first non-AP station).
Regarding claim 17, modified Pascal further teaches cause the first non-AP STA to set a first QoS characteristics element and a second QoS characteristics element in the SCS descriptor element, wherein the first QoS characteristics element comprises QoS information corresponding to the first unidirectional flow, and the second QoS characteristics element comprises QoS information corresponding to the second unidirectional flow (Guignard; Fig. 4. Para. [0237, 239]. A first QoS element and a second QoS element in a SCS descriptor, wherein a first QoS element corresponds to a first unidirectional flow, and a second QoS element corresponds to a second unidirectional flow.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Pascal further teaches at least one radio to transmit the SCS request, one or more antennas connected to the radio, and a processor to execute instructions of an operating system of the first non-AP STA (Pascal; Fig. 11a, b. A radio network is used to transmit a SCS request, at least an antenna connected to the radio network, and a processor is used to perform instruction of an operating system of a first non-AP station.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuo (US 20240015818 A1) teaches a communication system for QoS flow establishment in a wireless communication system.
Zhang (US Pub. 20230422101 A1) teaches a communication system for sidelink QoS.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights