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 .
1. Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements dated 08/22/2023, 01/31/2024, 06/13/2024, 07/14/2024, 03/18/2025, 05/12/2026, 06/26/2026 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. Claim 39 recites: “An apparatus for an Ultra High Reliability (UHR) station (STA), the apparatus comprising:
means for causing the UHR STA to, …transmit; and
means for causing the UHR STA to, contend the wireless medium….”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for causing the UHR STA to, …transmit; and
means for causing the UHR STA to, contend the wireless medium…. in claim 39.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claim(s) 21-24, 27, 32-36 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger et al., US 2018/0027453 in view of Lan et al, US 2024/0334485 hereafter Lan.
As for claim 21, Viger discloses:
An apparatus comprising: a processor configured to cause a station (STA) to: (Viger, [0132] FIG. 6 schematically illustrates a communication device 600 of the radio network 100, configured to implement at least one embodiment of the present invention. The communication device 600 may preferably be a device such as a micro-computer, a workstation or a light portable device. The communication device 600 comprises a communication bus 613 to which there are preferably connected: [0133] a central processing unit 611, such as a microprocessor, denoted CPU; [0134] a read only memory 607, denoted ROM, for storing computer programs for implementing the invention)
based on a determination that a predefined retransmission criterion is met with respect to data of a predefined Access Category (AC) queued at the STA, (Viger, Fig. 10, [0337], At step 1020, station 600 determines if at least one of the AC backoff counters reaches zero. [0340] The station shall determine, based on the current mode of the traffic queue associated with the expiring queue backoff counter, whether to access the communication channel to transmit data stored in the associated traffic queue (through the conventional EDCA process starting from step 1030). The predefined AC are shown in Fig. 2b) transmit a Clear to Send (CTS) frame to start a high-priority Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) contention over a wireless medium; (Viger, Fig. 10, [0350] Next, at step 1050, station 600 initiates an EDCA transmission, in case for instance an RTS/CTS exchange has been successfully performed to have an EDCA TXOP granted.)
and after transmission of the CTS frame, (Viger, Fig. 10, [0350] Next, at step 1050, station 600 initiates an EDCA transmission, in case for instance an RTS/CTS exchange has been successfully performed to have an EDCA TXOP granted.) contend the wireless medium according to a high-priority (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.) EDCA parameter setting to obtain a Transmit Opportunity (TxOP) for transmission of the data of the predefined AC; (Viger, Fig. 10, After step 1070 the process returns to steps 904, 1000, 1010, 1020, [0352] At step 1070, station 600 updates the EDCA contention window CW of the selected traffic queue, based on the status of transmission (positive or negative ack, or no ack received), [0355] Next, if the selected traffic queue is not empty after the EDCA data transmission, a new associated queue backoff counter is randomly selected from [0,CW], through a loop back to step 904. It means the station draws a new backoff value to reset the expiring queue backoff counter, after data stored in the associated traffic queue have been transmitted in the accessed communication channel.
and a memory to store information processed by the processor. (Viger, Fig. 6, [0281], The communication device 600 comprises a communication bus 613 to which there are preferably connected: [0282] a central processing unit 611, such as a microprocessor, denoted CPU; [0283] a read only memory 607,)
Viger does not explicitly disclose the station (STA) is an Ultra High Reliability (UHR) station (STA).
However, Lan discloses the station (STA) is an Ultra High Reliability (UHR) station (STA). (Lan, [0106], The Ultra High Reliability (UHR) STA)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Viger with the station (STA) is an Ultra High Reliability (UHR) station (STA) as disclosed by Lan to improve wireless medium protection for the MU TXOP against legacy devices. (Lan, [0075], [0106])
As for claims 22 and 36, Viger discloses configured to cause the UHR STA to transmit the CTS frame at a time that is based on an end of a time duration defined for a high-priority (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.) EDCA mechanism. (Fig. 10, The EDCA backoff countdown, steps 1010, 1020, 1099, 1050, [0337] Next, at step 1020, station 600 determines if at least one of the AC backoff counters reaches zero. [0350] Next, at step 1050, station 600 initiates an EDCA transmission, in case for instance an RTS/CTS exchange has been successfully performed to have an EDCA TXOP granted. Station 600 thus sends the selected data on the medium, during the granted EDCA TXOP.)
As for claim 23, Viger discloses the time duration comprises a duration of a predefined Arbitration Inter-Frame Space (AIFS) for the high-priority (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.) EDCA mechanism. ([0174], Similar to AIFS parameter, the differences between the contention windows of various traffic queues serve to prioritize traffic in higher priority queues by allowing them to wait shorter time intervals before being allowed to transmit over the air. [0323] the queue backoff value will be added to the AIFS in order to implement the relative priorities of the different access categories.)
As for claim 24, Viger discloses the predefined AIFS is based on a predefined AIFS Number (AIFSN) for the high-priority (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.) EDCA mechanism. ([0170], The values of EDCA parameter AIFS Number (AIFSN) are administrator configurable)
As for claim 27, Viger discloses high-priority EDCA mechanism (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.) Viger does not explicitly disclose configured to cause the UHR STA to set a duration field of the CTS frame according to a preset duration defined for EDCA mechanism.
However, Lan discloses configured to cause the UHR STA to set a duration field of the CTS frame according to a preset duration defined for EDCA mechanism. (Lan, [0109], In the CTS transmitted in (e.g., HE/EHT/UHR) TB PPDU, for EDCA TXOP single protection setting, the DUR field (minus CTS minus SIFS) may be copied into the DUR field of the CTS [0115], FIG. 10 illustrates EDCA TXOP single protection setting, in which, as shown, a STA receives a MU-RTS addressed to it, and uses the DUR field in the MU-RTS to derive the value of the L-SIG of the CTS)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Viger with configured to cause the UHR STA to set a duration field of the CTS frame according to a preset duration defined for EDCA mechanism as disclosed by Lan to improve wireless medium protection for the MU TXOP against legacy devices. (Lan, [0075])
As for claims 32 and 40, Viger discloses wherein the high-priority (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.) EDCA parameter setting comprises a Contention Window (CW) setting. ([0011] The contention windows CW and the queue backoff values are EDCA variables.)
As for claim 33, Viger discloses comprising at least one radio to transmit the CTS frame (Viger, Fig. 10, [0350] Next, at step 1050, station 600 initiates an EDCA transmission, in case for instance an RTS/CTS exchange has been successfully performed to have an EDCA TXOP granted.) and the data of the predefined AC. (Viger, Fig. 2b, [0060]-[0062], [0072], [0171], transmission of data frames from the AC)
As for claim 34, Viger discloses comprising one or more antennas connected to the radio, and another processor to execute instructions of an operating system. (Viger, Fig. 6, [0285] at least one communication interface 602 connected to the radio communication network 100 over which digital data packets or frames or control frames are transmitted, [0282] a central processing unit 611, such as a microprocessor, denoted CPU; [0283] a read only memory 607. )
Claims 35 and 39 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 21 above.
5. Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Lan as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Liu et al., US 2011/0194644 hereafter Liu.
As for claim 26, Viger discloses high-priority EDCA mechanism (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.) The combination of Viger and Lan does not explicitly disclose the UHR STA to scramble the CTS frame according to a preset scrambling seed defined for EDCA mechanism.
However, Liu discloses the UHR STA to scramble the CTS frame according to a preset scrambling seed defined for EDCA mechanism. (Liu, [0091] a recipient of a RTS can use the same scrambler seed as used by the received RTS to send a CTS. [0092] A TXOP holder can obtain a TXOP for two or more frequency channels using a multi-channel (MC) EDCA access rule and performing a multi-channel RTS/CTS exchange. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Viger and Lan with the UHR STA to scramble the CTS frame according to a preset scrambling seed defined for EDCA mechanism as taught by Liu to provide increased protection of a transmission opportunity from unrelated devices transmitting during the transmission opportunity, increased utilization of multi-channel capacity during a transmission opportunity. (Liu, [0029])
6. Claim(s) 25, 28 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Lan as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kim et al, US 2023/0413343 hereafter Kim.
As for claims 25 and 37, Viger discloses high-priority EDCA mechanism (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.). The combination of Viger and Lan does not explicitly disclose the UHR STA to configure the CTS frame according to a preset CTS configuration defined for EDCA mechanism.
However, Kim discloses the UHR STA to configure the CTS frame according to a preset CTS configuration defined for EDCA mechanism. (Kim, [0180], The RA field may be set to the address of one or more specific intended recipient STAs (e.g., the STA intended by the r-TWT EDCA TX Control subfield). The r-TWT EDCA TX Control subfield may be 1-bit long.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Viger and Lan the UHR STA to configure the CTS frame according to a preset CTS configuration defined for EDCA mechanism as disclosed by Kim to provide more efficient transmission of latency sensitive data. (Kim, [0094])
As for claim 28, Viger discloses high-priority EDCA mechanism (Viger, [0066] With EDCA, high priority traffic has a higher chance of being sent than low priority traffic: a station with high priority traffic waits a little less (low CW) before it sends its packet, on average, than a station with low priority traffic.). The combination of Viger and Lan does not explicitly disclose to cause the UHR STA to set a Receive Address (RA) field of the CTS frame according to a preset RA defined for a high-priority EDCA mechanism.
However, Kim discloses to cause the UHR STA to set a Receive Address (RA) field of the CTS frame according to a preset RA defined for a high-priority EDCA mechanism. (Kim, [0180], The RA field may be set to the address of one or more specific intended recipient STAs (e.g., the STA intended by the r-TWT EDCA TX Control subfield). The r-TWT EDCA TX Control subfield may be 1-bit long.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Viger and Lan with to cause the UHR STA to set a Receive Address (RA) field of the CTS frame according to a preset RA defined for a high-priority EDCA mechanism as disclosed by Kim to provide more efficient transmission of latency sensitive data. (Kim, [0094])
7. Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Lan as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kappes et al., US 2006/0187952 hereafter Kappes.
As for claim 29, the combination of Viger and Lan does not explicitly disclose wherein the CTS frame is configured to signal to a receiving STA to defer transmission.
However, Kappes discloses wherein the CTS frame is configured to signal to a receiving STA to defer transmission. (Kappes, Fig. 3, [0036], the AP provides a transmission opportunity for station A by transmitting a CTS frame indicating the duration window. At this time, station A will begin to transmit and complete frame exchange with the AP as shown in step 304, whereas stations associated with this AP other than station A will defer all transmissions until after the duration window indicated in the CTS as shown in step 305.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Viger and Lan with wherein the CTS frame is configured to signal to a receiving STA to defer transmission as disclosed by Kappes to provide preferential channel access for certain type of calls that need to be afforded with preferential treatment, such as emergency calls. (Kappes, [0018])
8. Claim(s) 30-31 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Lan as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kim et al, US 2017/0026947 hereafter Kim.
As for claims 30 and 38, the combination of Viger and Lan does not explicitly disclose the predefined retransmission criterion relates to a number of 35 transmissions of the data of the predefined AC.
However, Kim discloses the predefined retransmission criterion relates to a number of failed transmissions of the data of the predefined AC. (Kim, [0092] if the BC of AC_VO or AC BE is not reset and thus is transmitted earlier than AC_VI, AC_VI which is the primary AC may not be retransmitted due to continuous retransmission failure of AC_VO/AC BE. [0094], after the retry counter for the secondary AC is defined, whenever retransmission of the secondary AC is performed, the counter increases by 1. If the counter reaches a specific threshold (e.g., 2 or 4), the AP may no longer try transmission of traffic corresponding to the secondary AC in a secondary AC format.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Viger and Lan with the predefined retransmission criterion relates to a number of failed transmissions of the data of the predefined AC as disclosed by Kim to more efficiently performing retransmission during transmission opportunity sharing operation in order to improve performance of a wireless communication system. (Kim, [0005])
As for claim 31, the combination of Viger and Lan does not explicitly disclose configured to cause the UHR STA to determine that the predefined retransmission criterion is met based on a failure of a defined number of transmissions of the data of the predefined AC.
However, Kim discloses configured to cause the UHR STA to determine that the predefined retransmission criterion is met based on a failure of a defined number of transmissions of the data of the predefined AC. (Kim, [0092] if the BC of AC_VO or AC BE is not reset and thus is transmitted earlier than AC_VI, AC_VI which is the primary AC may not be retransmitted due to continuous retransmission failure of AC_VO/AC BE. [0094], after the retry counter for the secondary AC is defined, whenever retransmission of the secondary AC is performed, the counter increases by 1. If the counter reaches a specific threshold (e.g., 2 or 4), the AP may no longer try transmission of traffic corresponding to the secondary AC in a secondary AC format.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of Viger and Lan with configured to cause the UHR STA to determine that the predefined retransmission criterion is met based on a failure of a defined number of transmissions of the data of the predefined AC as disclosed by Kim to more efficiently performing retransmission during transmission opportunity sharing operation in order to improve performance of a wireless communication system. (Kim, [0005])
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2005/0135295 [0355] When both legacy and MIMO STAs are present, STAs using EDCA access procedures may use a legacy RTS/CTS sequence for protection.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, IAN MOORE can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights