DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 04/21/2026 as been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 are pending.
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 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, it appears the amended feature “wherein the first data frame includes at least one of an information elements indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within the shared TXOP duration based on a TXOP limit which the reverse direction communication is allowed from the AP,” was not described in the specification at the time of the application was filed. Applicant has not pointed out disclosure in the specification for the amended feature nor does there appear to be one after a review by the examiner. Therefore, the amended feature is considered new matter.
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 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by “the first data frame and the second data frame are transmitted at SIFS interval”.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 4-8, 10-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2023/0413327 A1, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1:
Kim discloses a method of a first station (STA) (e.g., Fig. 13, Non-AP STA1), comprising:
receiving, from an access point (AP) (e.g., Fig. 13, AP), a first frame including an information element indicating a transmit opportunity (TXOP) sharing mode 2 (e.g., Fig. 13, MU-RTS TXS TF, [0154]-[0156]);
identifying a shared TXOP duration based on the first frame (e.g., [0157], [0165], [0177]); and
performing communication with a second STA (e.g., Fig. 13, Non-AP STA2) within the shared TXOP duration based on the TXOP sharing mode being indicated by the first frame (e.g., Fig. 13, DATA to STA 2, [0165]), wherein a TXOP sharing mode 1 indicates that communication between the first STA and the AP is allowed within the shared TXOP duration, and the TXOP sharing mode 2 indicates that communication between the first STA and the second STA is allowed within the shared TXOP duration (e.g., [0155], [0163], [0165], Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 2:
Kim further discloses transmitting a second frame which is a response to the first frame, wherein the first frame is a multi-user-request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame, the second frame is a clear-to-send (CTS) frame, and the second frame is transmitted after a short interframe space (SIFS) from an end time of the MU-RTS frame (e.g., [0103], [0172], Fig. 13, a time delay between MU-RTS TXS TF and CTS response to AP).
Regarding claim 4:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first frame further includes an information element indicating a length of the shared TXOP duration, and the shared TXOP duration is configured within a TXOP duration initiated by the AP (e.g., Fig. 13, Time allocated in MU-RTS TX TF, [0157], [0165]).
Regarding claim 5:
Kim further discloses the first frame further includes an information element indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within the shared TXOP duration (e.g., [0103], [0106]).
Regarding claim 6:
Kim further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first frame further includes an information element indicating an access category (AC) of a data unit transmittable in a link to which the TXOP sharing is applied (e.g., [0168], [0176], indicating a type of traffic an STA can transmit).
Regarding claim 7:
Kim further discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the performing of the communication with the second STA comprises transmitting, to the second STA and within the shared TXOP duration, at least one of a data unit corresponding to an AC equal to the AC indicated by the first frame or a data unit corresponding to an AC having a higher priority than the AC indicated by the first frame (e.g., [0168], [0176], indicating a type of traffic an STA can transmit).
Regarding claim 8:
Kim further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first frame includes an association identifier (AID), and the first AID included in the first frame is an AID of the first STA that is a target of the TXOP sharing (e.g., [0152], [0167]).
Regarding claim 10:
Kim discloses a method of an access point (AP), comprising: securing a transmit opportunity (TXOP) duration; generating a first frame including an information element indicating TXOP sharing mode 2 and an information element indicating a length of a shared TXOP duration within the TXOP duration; transmitting the first frame to a first STA among the plurality of STAs; and receiving a second frame that is a response to the first frame from the first STA, wherein a TXOP sharing mode 1 indicates that communication between the first STA and the AP is allowed within the shared TXOP duration, and the TXOP sharing mode 2 indicates that communication between the first STA and the second STA is allowed within the shared TXOP duration. (See similar claim limitations discussed above with respect to claims 1, 4, 8 and 9.)
Regarding claim 11:
Kim further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the TXOP duration is secured by transmitting a clear-to-send (CTS)-to-self frame, the first frame is a multi-user-request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame, and the second frame is a CTS frame, the second frame is transmitted after a short interframe space (SIFS) from an end time of the MU-RTS frame (See rejection of claim 2.)
Regarding claim 12:
Kim further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the first frame further includes at least one of an information element indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within the shared TXOP duration or an information element indicating an access category (AC) of a data unit transmittable in a link to which the TXOP sharing is applied. (See rejection of claim 6.)
Regarding claim 13:
Kim discloses a first station (STA) (e.g., Fig. 1, 110) comprising: a processor (Fig. 1, 111); a memory (Fig. 1, 112) electronically communicating with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory, wherein when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the first STA to: receive, from an access point (AP), a first frame including an information element indicating a transmit opportunity (TXOP) sharing mode 2; identify a shared TXOP duration based on the first frame; and perform communication with a second STA within the shared TXOP duration based on the TXOP sharing mode 2 being indicated by the first frame, wherein a TXOP sharing mode 1 indicates that communication between the first STA and the AP is allowed within the shared TXOP duration, and the TXOP sharing mode 2 indicates that communication between the first STA and the second STA is allowed within the shared TXOP duration. (See similar claim limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1.)
Regarding claims 15-19:
See similar claim limitations discussed above with respect to claims 4-8.
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.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Baron et al. (US 2023/0209512 A1, “Baron”).
Regarding claims 9 and 20:
Kim further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing of the communication with the second STA comprises: transmitting a first data frame to the second STA (e.g., Fig. 13, DATA to STA 2); and receiving a second data frame from the second STA (e.g., Fig. 13, Block ACK to STA 1), wherein the first data frame is transmitted after end time of the second frame, and the first data frame and the second data frame are transmitted at SIFS interval (e.g., [0103]).
Kim is silent regarding the first data frame includes at least one of an information elements indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within the shared TXOP duration based on a TXOP limit which the reverse direction communication is allowed from the AP.
Baron teaches a data frame includes an information elements indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within a shared TXOP duration based on a TXOP limit which the reverse direction communication is allowed from a AP ([0034-[0040], [0222], [0223], [0226], [0230]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Baron to include the feature the first data frame includes at least one of an information elements indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within the shared TXOP duration based on a TXOP limit which the reverse direction communication is allowed from the, in order to reduce latency and improve throughput for the STAs during TXOP sharing.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Baron
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 10 and 13 as amended have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection based on Kim.
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 Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/BO HUI A ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights