DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant amendment filed on 9/4/2026 to previously withdrawn claim because of restriction requirement and claims 33-35, 48-55 require all the limitations of the allowable claims. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requires inventions among, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 6/24/2026, is hereby withdrawn and claim 33-35, 48-55 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: For example,
Para 45 and Fig. 2 refer to box 215, these service reductions may be determined with respect to factors including, but not limited to, current channel loading in this BSS (or an extended service set (ESS) including this BSS), a number of non-AP STAs invoking priority access in this BSS/ESS, a number of connected non-priority non-AP STA in this BSS/ESS, and/or other factors.
Similarly, Para 63 define and refer to box 315, these service reductions may be determined with respect to factors including, but not limited to, current channel loading in this BSS (or an ESS including this BSS), a number of non-AP STAs invoking priority access in this BSS/ESS, a number of connected non-priority non-AP STA in this BSS/ESS, and/or other factors such as described above with respect to step 210 and box 215 of the method 200 of FIG. 2. Para 67 and Fig. 3 refer to to box 335, the message may comprise negotiated or broadcast messages indicative of a TWT-based service reduction, such as in a demand TWT, suggest TWT or other negotiated TWT message, a broadcast TWT message and/or some other message.
Para 75 and Fig. 4 refer to box 415, these service reductions may be determined with respect to factors including, but not limited to, current channel loading in this BSS (or an ESS including this BSS), a number of non-AP STAs invoking priority access in this BSS/ESS, a number of connected non-priority non-AP STA in this BSS/ESS, and/or other factors such as described above with respect to step 210 and box 215 of the method 200 of FIG. 2.
Para 88 and Fig. 5 refer to Unit 515 these service reductions may be determined with respect to factors including, but not limited to, current channel loading in this BSS(or an ESS including this BSS), a number of non-AP STAs invoking priority access in this BSS/ESS, a number of connected non-priority non-AP STA in this BSS/ESS, and/or other factors such as described above with respect to step 210 and box 215 of the method 200 of FIG. 2.
MPEP clearly state that the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See Trs. of Bos. Univ., 896 F.3d at 1364 ("‘The scope of enablement . . . is that which is disclosed in the specification plus the scope of what would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.’" (quoting Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1196, 49 USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). For example, in Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 85 USPQ2d 1826 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the claims at issue were directed to "integrating" or "substituting" a user’s audio signal or visual image into a pre-existing video game or movie. Id. at 995-97. While the claims covered both video games and movies, the specification only taught the skilled artisan how to substitute and integrate user images into video games. Id. at 1000. The Federal Circuit held that the specification "did not enable the full scope of the asserted claims" because "one skilled in the art could not take the disclosure in the specification with respect to substitution or integration of user images in video games and substitute a user image for a pre- existing character image in movies without undue experimentation." Id. (See MPEP 2161.1 III Para 8). Further, Para 9 of the MPEP suggest that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement must be made when the specification does not enable the full scope of the claim. USPTO personnel should establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention and provide reasons for the uncertainty of the enablement. By adding in the specification “other factors” or “some other messages” recited in the specification does not determine whether the full scope of the computer implemented functional claim limitation are enabled and does not provide proper remedy what “other messages” or “other factors” mean.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 26-35, 46-58 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per independent claims 26, 33 and 49, applicant is claiming “determine, based on traffic conditions or historical activity of a plurality of UEs, one or more time-frequency resources to be reserved for UE utilizing or supporting the priority services mechanism” (emphasis added) and suggest that the support can be found in Para 45 and 46 and added claim 56 defining historical activity comprises and actual or expected change in at least one of a radio or a number of plurality of UEs using network service (See argument 9/4/2026 Page 15). According to Para 45 and 46 of the specification, disclosed determinations may be made with respect to network conditions, a ratio and/or number of priority and or non-priority STAs using network services, an actual/expected change in the ratio and/or numbers, and other criteria. First of all its not clear what other criteria are. Unless applicant refers to historical activity as other criteria the specification does not define how determination is based on historical activities. In telecommunication, and according to Google description historical activity refers to documented patterns, milestones and technological developments. The plain meaning of historical activity generally refers to the recorded mobility and usage pattern. Such as the network or the UE itself logs for later analysis and optimization. Accordingly, it is not clear how Para 45 and 46 or any of the figure 2-5 disclose or suggest that one having ordinary skill in art can refer them to historical activities.
Dependent claims do not overcome the deficiency of the independent claims as a whole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26-35, 46-58 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) paragraph, set forth in this Office action and overcoming specification objection.
The following claim 26, 33 and 49 drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application and overcome 35 U.S.C. 112(a) paragraph, set forth in this Office action, are presented to applicant for consideration:
26. (Currently Amended) A wireless access point (AP) apparatus, comprising:
data interface apparatus configured to communicate with a network;
digital processor apparatus in data communication with the data interface apparatus; and
storage apparatus in data communication with the data interface apparatus and the digital processor apparatus and comprising at least one computer program, the at least one computer program comprising a plurality of instructions which are configured to, when executed by the digital processor apparatus, cause the wireless AP apparatus to:
identify user equipment (UE) not utilizing or not supporting a priority services mechanism, the UE in data communication with the wireless AP apparatus via a communication channel;
determine, based on traffic conditions or an actual or expected change in at least one of a ratio or a number of plurality of UEs using network services of a plurality of UEs, one or more time-frequency resources to be reserved for UE utilizing or supporting the priority services mechanism; and
based on the identification, transmit data representative of at least one message to one or more UE, the data representative of the message announcing an availability of the reserved one or more time-frequency resources within an uplink orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (UL-OFDMA) frame, and configured to cause the UE not utilizing or not supporting the priority services mechanism to modify channel access procedures to refrain from transmitting data within the reserved one or more time-frequency resources.
33. (Currently amended - Rejoined) A computerized method for supporting priority services at a wireless access point (AP) apparatus, comprising:
identifying user equipment (UE) not utilizing or not supporting a priority services mechanism, the UE in data communication with the wireless AP apparatus via a communication channel;
determining, at the wireless AP apparatus, one or more service reductions to implement at the UE not utilizing or not supporting the priority services mechanism in communication with the wireless AP apparatus;
determining, based on traffic conditions oran actual or expected change in at least one of a ratio or a number of plurality of UEs using network services of a plurality of UEs, one or more time-frequency resources to be reserved for UE utilizing or supporting the priority services mechanism; and
based on the identifying and the determining of the one or more time-frequency
resources, transmitting, to one or more UE, data representative of one or more messages announcing an availability of the reserved one or more time-frequency resources within an uplink orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (UL-OFDMA) frame, and configured to cause the UE not utilizing or not supporting the priority services mechanism to modify channel access procedures to refrain from transmitting
data within the reserved one or more time-frequency resources.
49. (Currently amended - Rejoined) A Computer readable apparatus comprising a non-transitory storage medium, the non-transitory storage medium comprising at least one computer program having a plurality of instructions, the plurality of instructions configured to, when executed on a digital processing apparatus of a wireless access point (AP) apparatus, cause the wireless AP apparatus to:
identify user equipment (UE) not utilizing or not supporting a priority services
mechanism, the UE in data communication with the wireless AP apparatus via a communication channel;
determine, based on traffic conditions or an actual or expected change in at least one of a ratio or a number of plurality of UEs using network services of a plurality of UEs, one or more time-frequency resources to be reserved for UE utilizing or supporting the priority services mechanism; and
based on the identification, transmit data representative of at least one message to one or more UE, the data representative of the message announcing an availability of the reserved one or more time-frequency resources within an uplink orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (UL-OFDMA) frame, and comprising a predetermined value stored in a data field and configured to cause the UE not utilizing or not supporting the priority services mechanism to modify channel access procedures to refrain from transmitting data within the reserved one or more time-frequency resources.
Claim 34 -35, 48-55 (Rejoined).
Claim 56 (Cancelled).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant argues and acknowledges the indication at page 7 of the Office Action that Claims 26 - 32, 46, 47, and 49 - 55 "would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) paragraph including overcoming drawing and specification objection." Applicant respectfully submits that no rewriting or amendment of those claims is required. For the reasons set forth in Sections 5 through 7 infra, Applicant respectfully submits that the objections are addressed by the Replacement Sheets and the amendment to paragraph [0088] submitted herewith, and that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is not sustainable. Applicant therefore respectfully submits that Claims 26 - 32, 46, 47, and 49 - 58 are in condition for allowance, and that Claims 33 - 35 and 48 are in condition for rejoinder.
Examiner agrees that claim 26-32, 46, 47, 49 are in condition for allowance and claim 33-35 and 48 are in condition for rejoinder if applicant overcome 35 USC 112 (a) rejection.
Drawing Objection
Applicant argues that current amendment to the drawing filed on 9/4/2026 will overcome the objection.
Examiner agrees with the applicant and the objection to the drawing is withdrawn.
Specification Objection
Applicant is arguing that with respect to the recitations of "and/or other factors" and "some other message," Applicant respectfully traverses the objection. Each such recitation appears within an expressly exemplary listing introduced by "factors including but not limited to" or its equivalent. A listing of that form is a conventional means of describing a genus by reference to representative species together with a statement applicable to the genus as a whole, and it is the description upon which the claims as presented herein rely. See MPEP §§ 2163, 2163.05. Deletion of the recitations identified by the Office would remove from the disclosure the description of the genus that 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) requires the specification to contain, and would prejudice the claims as presented herein, the withdrawn claims, and the claims of any continuing application. However, examiner disagrees and bring applicant attention to MPEP where it is clear said that 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. MPEP further explains that the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See Trs. of Bos. Univ., 896 F.3d at 1364 ("‘The scope of enablement is that which is disclosed in the specification plus the scope of what would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.’" (quoting Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1196, 49 USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). For example, in Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 85 USPQ2d 1826 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the claims at issue were directed to "integrating" or "substituting" a user’s audio signal or visual image into a pre-existing video game or movie. Id. at 995-97. While the claims covered both video games and movies, the specification only taught the skilled artisan how to substitute and integrate user images into video games. Id. at 1000. The Federal Circuit held that the specification "did not enable the full scope of the asserted claims" because "one skilled in the art could not take the disclosure in the specification with respect to substitution or integration of user images in video games and substitute a user image for a pre- existing character image in movies without undue experimentation." Id. (See MPEP 2161.1 III Para 8). Further, Para 9 of the MPEP suggest that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement must be made when the specification does not enable the full scope of the claim. USPTO personnel should establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention and provide reasons for the uncertainty of the enablement. By adding in the specification “other factors” or “some other messages” recited in the specification does not determine whether the full scope of the computer implemented functional claim limitation are enabled and does not provide proper remedy what “other messages” or “other factors” mean and for that reasons objection to the specification is maintained.
Rejection Under § 112(a)
Applicant is arguing that historical activity, paragraph [0046] describes that "[m]ore fine grained determinations may be made with respect to network conditions, a ratio and/or number of priority and or non-priority STAs using network services, an actual/expected change in the ratio and/or numbers, and other criteria." A change in a ratio or number cannot be determined from a single observation at a single instant. Determining an actual change in the ratio or number of stations using network services requires reference to the ratio or number as it previously stood, and forming an expectation of a change requires reference to activity already observed. The description of determinations made with respect to actual and expected changes in the ratio and number of priority and non-priority stations using network services is therefore a description of determinations made with respect to the historical activity of a plurality of UEs. However, examiner disagrees and again bring applicant attention to Para 45 and 46 of the specification, where it is disclosed that determinations may be made with respect to network conditions, a ratio and/or number of priority and or non-priority STAs using network services, an actual/expected change in the ratio and/or numbers, and other criteria. First of all, it’s not clear what other criteria are. Even if applicant define “other criteria” in the drawing filed on 9/4/2026, it still does not provide remedy to the specification. Having said that even if applicant is referring to historical activity as other criteria the specification does not define how determination is based on historical activities. Even if looking at the drawing, there is no way one can refer to historical activity as network conditions, ratio/number of priority and non-priority, STA using network services, actual/expected change in ratio/number In telecommunication, the plain meaning historical activity refers to documented patterns, milestones and technological developments. The plain meaning of historical activity generally refers to the recorded mobility and usage pattern. Such as the network or the UE itself logs for later analysis and optimization. Accordingly, it is not clear how Para 45 and 46 or any of the figure 2-5 disclose or suggest that one having ordinary skill in art can refer them to historical activities. MPEP clearly state that when applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “historical activity” in all independent claims is used by the claim to mean “expected or actual or expected change in at least one of a ratio or a number of the plurality of UEs using network services,” while the accepted meaning is “documented patterns, milestones and technological developments.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. However, if applicant amend independent claims “historical activity” with “expected or actual or expected change in at least one of a ratio or a number of the plurality of UEs using network services”, it will overcome the rejection, and the claim will be allowed.
Conclusion
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 NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights