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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed November 12, 2025. Claims 5 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 are amended and are currently pending.
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.
Claim 3 and 11 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.
Amended claims 3 and 11 recite the limitation "the intra-BSS NAV" in line 7 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josiam et al., (US 20160262173, hereinafter referred to as “Josiam”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20230413327, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”), in further view of Fischer (US 20210195540).
Regarding claim 1, Josiam teaches a station (STA) in a wireless communication system (figure 1), comprising:
a transceiver ([0005] the STA includes a transceiver); and
a processor ([0005] the STA includes at least one processor) configured to control the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a trigger frame from an access point (AP) (abstract - receiving a trigger frame from the AP, wherein the trigger frame includes scheduling information of the UL data based on the AC information included in the transmitted resource status response to the AP and processing the scheduling information included in the trigger frame to transmit the UL data to the AP.), wherein the trigger frame is used to share a specific time, which is part or all of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) obtained by the AP, with the STA ([0087] In some embodiments, an access category queue and TXOP duration per access category for an uplink and downlink can be separately maintained. An uplink queue per access category is populated by the received resource requests from an AP. An uplink trigger frame is sent for the access category of uplink data that won the contention. The TXOP is shared with the access category that has the same or lower priority than the access category of the uplink data that won contention. If the TXOP cannot be shared i.e., if no other resource requests are received and the uplink queues for the other access categories are empty, the AP may choose not to send the uplink TF even if the access category wins contention. An AP scheduler may not transmit a TF when only one STA is to be scheduled using an uplink trigger frame.).
However, Josiam does not explicitly teach transmit, a non-triggered-based physical layer protocol data unit (non-TB PPDU) to the AP and/or another STA within the specific time based on the trigger frame, wherein the non-TB PPDU includes duration information, and wherein the duration information is set based on the specific time.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches transmit, a non-triggered-based physical layer protocol data unit (non-TB PPDU) to the AP and/or another STA within the specific time based on the trigger frame ([0167] After the non-AP STA receives the MU-RTS TXS trigger frame from the associated AP containing the addressed User Info field, the STA receives one or more non-TB PPDU must be transmitted. The first PPDU of the exchange shall be a CTS frame transmitted according to the rules defined in the CTS frame response to the MU-RTS trigger frame.).
In another analogous art, Fischer teaches wherein the non-TB PPDU includes duration information, and wherein the duration information is set based on the specific time ([0175] In aspects of the disclosure, a modified trigger frame and response are provided. For example, modify the trigger frame or TRS to allow a single user to be triggered to send a non-TB frame (e.g., any SU PPDU) versus the existing response to the trigger being an HE TB PPDU (i.e., an explicit indication to the trigger recipient to respond with an SU PPDU instead of an HE TB PPDU). Here, the modification may just be based on the TA of the trigger frame (i.e., if TA of trigger frame< >BSS identification (BSSID), then this is a trigger for an SU PPDU, not an HE TB PPDU).).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Josiam, Kim, and Fischer because they solve the same problem of efficiently using TXOPs and trigger-based scheduling to optimize TXOP utilization and performance.
Regarding claim 2, neither Josiam or Kim explicitly teach the STA of claim 1, wherein an end time indicated by the duration information is an end time of the specific time. Fischer teaches wherein an end time indicated by the duration information is an end time of the specific time ([0011] In aspects of the disclosure, a method is provided, the method including responding to a received request to send transmitted by a first multi-link device with a clear to send containing a duration field value that indicates a time value that will result in alignment of physical layer protocol data units transmitted subsequent to the clear to send with physical layer protocol data units being received on another link.). The motivation to combine is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Josiam teaches the STA of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame comprises a specific field indicating whether the TXOP is shared by the trigger frame ([0078] In some embodiment, an STA on receiving a TF from an AP responds if the STA address indicated in the TF matches the STA's address, if virtual carrier sense mechanisms network allocation vector (NAV) was set by the AP that sent the TF. When the NAV is set by nodes other than the AP that sent the TF, the STA response can be calibrated based on multiple parameters. In one example, if the TF is a UL MU block ACK (BA) request, the STA ignores the NAV and transmits the BA anyway. In another example, if the TF calls UL MU data, the STA can use spatial re-use rules or to establish if responding to the UL MU transmission will cause interference to the ongoing transmission that necessitated the NAV. In yet another example, spatial re-use mechanisms involve measurements based on the received and fields in the decoded packets that contain parameters to help the STA assess if the STA's transmission impacts an ongoing transmission. In such example, these fields can be carried in an enhanced request to send (RTS)/enhanced clear to send (CTS) response or in high efficiency-signaling-A (HE-SIG-A). In yet another example, if the TF is a random access trigger frame, the STA ignores the NAV and transmits on a resource of the random access trigger frame anyway. In yet another example, the STA checks channel availability or performs an energy detection in a unit of the 20 MHz segments that contain a resource unit that may be used to transmit the UL MU data.).
Regarding claim 7, Josiam teaches the STA of claim 6, wherein a value of the specific field indicates whether transmission to or reception from the AP and/or another STA is possible within the specific time when the specific field indicates sharing of the TXOP ([0075] In some embodiments, a TXOP won by gaining channel access based on a particular access category can be shared in frequency or time resources with other categories that have the same or lower in priority to a scheduled AC. The TXOP may include frequency and time resource sharing in addition to the spatial sharing of the TXOP. In such embodiments, a PPDU duration may be the same for all the users transmitting the UL MU data. In one example, when a TXOP sharing is restricted to only frequency and spatial resource domains, then the PPDU duration of the access categories scheduled for the transmission from all STAs scheduled in the UL MU transmission is set to be same. In another example, when a TXOP is shared in the time resource domain in addition to the frequency and spatial resource domains, the tight requirement of PPDU duration is maintained in frequency and spatial resource domains and can be differentiate across different time intervals within the same TXOP.).
Regarding claim 8, Josiam taches the STA of claim 1, wherein the trigger frame comprises a type field indicating a type of the trigger frame, and wherein specific time is configured to share the part or all of the TXOP is set based on the type of the trigger frame indicated by the type field ([0076] In some embodiments, if an STA responds to a trigger frame (TF) with an UL MU PPDU, MPDUs that belong to an AC aforementioned in the trigger frame gets a level of priority. The AC is indicated by a TID carried in the trigger frame. If UL transmission duration specified in the TF is larger than an amount of traffic at the STA for the indicated AC, multiple frames may be transmitted as long as the multiple frames belong to the same AC. Frames pending in other AC may also be transmitted, if no more frames in the specified AC are available in order to utilize the specified UL PPDU duration.).
Claims 9-10, and 14-16 are similar to claims 1-2, and 6-8, respectively, therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 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, and amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112 as set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach The STA of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit a specific frame, which is a last frame transmitted by the STA within the specific time, when the specific frame is transmitted, the specific time is returned to the AP, and the STA performs transmission regardless of the intra-BSS NAV until the specific time is returned.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach the STA of claim 1, wherein a NAV is not reset even after a NAV timeout has expired within the specific time when the NAV timeout indicating termination of the NAV and the NAV are set based on the trigger frame
Claims 11-12 are objected to for the same reason as claims 3-4, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn. However, the amendment introduces new matter that constitutes similar type of rejection in claim 3. Please see the rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, and 14-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALINA N BOUTAH whose telephone number is (571)272-3908. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at (571) 270-3037. 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.
ALINA BOUTAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2458
/ALINA A BOUTAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458