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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is response to Application 18/261,860 filed on 07/18/2023 in which claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant's amendment filed on June 8, 2026.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed June 8, 2026 concerning claims 1-16 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, on page 7 of Applicant's remarks, Applicant submits that Lee does not disclose “receive a first data unit from a second device in a first transmission opportunity, TXOP, allocated by the second device for data transmission between the first device and the second device.”
In response to applicant’s remarks, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lee teaches in Paragraph [0439] relay receives frame about the STA and then transmit the DL frame through a DL slot, slot allocated by the relay. Therefore the second device is allocating the transmission opportunity and Examiner’s assertions are clear and proper.
Regarding claim 1, on page 8 of Applicant's remarks, Applicant submits that Lee does not disclose “the first data unit having a header comprising an identifier of the first device” “deaggregate the first data unit into a plurality of sub-data units” and “process the plurality of sub-data units based on respective address information associated with the plurality of sub-data units”
In response to applicant’s remarks, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lee teaches in Paragraph [0110] the relay transmits the divided data to corresponding STA. Therefore, Lee teaches the claim limitation and Examiner’s assertions are clear and proper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 12 and 13 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0068578 A1).
1. Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a first device (Fig. 1 and 2) comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program codes;
the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device at least to:
receive a first data unit from a second device in a first transmission opportunity, TXOP, allocated by the second device for data transmission between the first device and the second device (Paragraph [0435] - [0439] TXOP; transmit frame using allocated; STA-Relay-Root AP),
the first data unit having a header comprising an identifier of the first device; de-aggregate the first data unit into a plurality of sub-data units; and process the plurality of sub-data units based on respective address information associated with the plurality of sub-data units (Paragraph [0110] data aggregation technologies; divide data received and transmit to corresponding station).
2. Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches wherein the first device is caused to process the plurality of sub-data units by: in accordance with a determination, based on the respective address information, that a set of sub-data units in the plurality of sub-data units are to be transmitted to a third device, re- aggregating the set of sub-data units into a second data unit; and forwarding the second data unit to the third device in a second TXOP allocated by the second device for a data transmission between the first device and the third device (Paragraph [0110] data aggregation technologies; divide data received and transmit to corresponding station).
3. Regarding claims 8 and 14, Lee teaches wherein the first device comprises an extender access point or an agent access point and the second device comprises a root access point or a gateway (Paragraph [0435] - [0439] TXOP; transmit frame using allocated; STA-Relay-Root AP).
4. Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches a second device comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program codes;
the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the second device at least to:
aggregate a plurality of sub-data units into a first data unit, the first data unit having a header comprising an identifier of a first device (Paragraph [0110] data aggregation technologies; aggregate data from each STA);
obtain a first transmission opportunity, TXOP, allocated by the second device for data transmission between the first device and the second device (Paragraph [0435] - [0439] TXOP; transmit frame using allocated; STA-Relay-Root AP); and
transmit the first data unit to the first device in the first TXOP (Paragraph [0110] data aggregation technologies; divide data received and transmit to corresponding station).
5. Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches A method comprising:
receiving, at a first device, a first data unit from a second device in a first transmission opportunity, TXOP, allocated by the second device for data transmission between the first device and the second device (Paragraph [0435] - [0439] TXOP; transmit frame using allocated; STA-Relay-Root AP),
the first data unit having a header comprising an identifier of the first device;
de-aggregating the first data unit into a plurality of sub-data units; and
processing the plurality of sub-data units based on respective address information associated with the plurality of sub-data units (Paragraph [0110] data aggregation technologies; divide data received and transmit to corresponding station).
6. Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches a method comprising:
aggregating, at a second device, a plurality of sub-data units into a first data unit, the first data unit having a header comprising an identifier of a first device (Paragraph [0110] data aggregation technologies; aggregate data from each STA);
obtaining a first transmission opportunity, TXOP, allocated by the second device for data transmission between a first device and the second device (Paragraph [0435] - [0439] TXOP; transmit frame using allocated; STA-Relay-Root AP); and
transmitting the first data unit to the first device in the first TXOP (Paragraph [0110] data aggregation technologies; divide data received and transmit to corresponding station).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0068578 A1) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2015/0036673 A1) in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0358067 A1).
7. Regarding claim 3, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first device is further caused to: in accordance with a determination that an acknowledgement is received, the acknowledgement indicating the second data unit has been received by the third device.
Asterjadhi teaches wherein the first device is further caused to: in accordance with a determination that an acknowledgement is received, the acknowledgement indicating the second data unit has been received by the third device, (Figure 13A, Paragraph [0199] acknowledgement policy).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the first device is further caused to: in accordance with a determination that an acknowledgement is received, the acknowledgement indicating the second data unit has been received by the third device as taught by Asterjadhi in the system of Lee for different acknowledgement policies associated with different receiver addresses see abstract of Asterjadhi.
Lee in view of Asterjadhi does not explicitly disclose remove the set of sub-data units.
Zhang teaches remove the set of sub-data units (Figure 2, Paragraph [0076] after ACK, removes the data frame).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide remove the set of sub-data units as taught by Zhang in the system of Lee in view of Asterjadhi for relay functionality see Paragraph [0074] of Zhang.
8. Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Asterjadhi in view of Zhang teaches wherein the first device is further caused to:
in accordance with a determination that the acknowledgement is required by the second device, forward the acknowledgement to the second device in the first TXOP (Zhang, Figure 22 ACK forwarding scheme).
Claims 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0068578 A1) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2015/0036673 A1).
9. Regarding claim 6, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first device is further caused to: in accordance with a determination, based on the respective address information, that a further set of sub-data units in the plurality of sub-data units are to be transmitted to the first device, transmit, to the second device in the first TXOP, an acknowledgement indicating that the further set of sub-data units have been received by the first device.
Asterjadhi teaches wherein the first device is further caused to: in accordance with a determination, based on the respective address information, that a further set of sub-data units in the plurality of sub-data units are to be transmitted to the first device, transmit, to the second device in the first TXOP, an acknowledgement indicating that the further set of sub-data units have been received by the first device (Figure 13A, Paragraph [0199] acknowledgement policy).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the first device is further caused to: in accordance with a determination, based on the respective address information, that a further set of sub-data units in the plurality of sub-data units are to be transmitted to the first device, transmit, to the second device in the first TXOP, an acknowledgement indicating that the further set of sub-data units have been received by the first device as taught by Asterjadhi in the system of Lee for different acknowledgement policies associated with different receiver addresses see abstract of Asterjadhi.
10. Regarding claim 10, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of sub-data units comprises a set of sub-data units to be transmitted to a third device, wherein the second device is further caused to: transmit, to the first device in the first TXOP, a request for an acknowledgement indicating that the set of sub-data units have been received by the third device.
Asterjadhi teaches wherein the plurality of sub-data units comprises a set of sub-data units to be transmitted to a third device, wherein the second device is further caused to: transmit, to the first device in the first TXOP, a request for an acknowledgement indicating that the set of sub-data units have been received by the third device (Figure 13A, Paragraph [0199] acknowledgement policy).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of sub-data units comprises a set of sub-data units to be transmitted to a third device, wherein the second device is further caused to: transmit, to the first device in the first TXOP, a request for an acknowledgement indicating that the set of sub-data units have been received by the third device as taught by Asterjadhi in the system of Lee for different acknowledgement policies associated with different receiver addresses see abstract of Asterjadhi.
11. Regarding claim 11, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of sub-data units comprises a further set of sub-data units to be transmitted to a first device, wherein the second device is further caused to: receive, from the first device in the first TXOP, an acknowledgement indicating that the further set of sub-data units have been received by the first device.
Asterjadhi teaches wherein the plurality of sub-data units comprises a further set of sub-data units to be transmitted to a first device, wherein the second device is further caused to: receive, from the first device in the first TXOP, an acknowledgement indicating that the further set of sub-data units have been received by the first device (Figure 13A, Paragraph [0199] acknowledgement policy).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of sub-data units comprises a further set of sub-data units to be transmitted to a first device, wherein the second device is further caused to: receive, from the first device in the first TXOP, an acknowledgement indicating that the further set of sub-data units have been received by the first device as taught by Asterjadhi in the system of Lee for different acknowledgement policies associated with different receiver addresses see abstract of Asterjadhi.
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 DIANE LEE LO whose telephone number is (571)270-1952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571)272-7969. 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.
/DIANE L LO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights