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 .
This application has been examined.
Claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ciochina-Kar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0308943; hereinafter Ciochina).
Regarding claim 1 Ciochina discloses a device (fig. 9), the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage (paragraphs 0071-0072; communication devices 100, 200, 300 comprises circuitry 101, 201, 301 configured to perform particular operations. The circuitries may be implemented by a respective processor or computer, i.e. as hardware and/or software, or by dedicated units or components), the processing circuitry configured to:
divide a transmit opportunity (TXOP) transmission into physical layer convergence procedure service data unit (PSDU) or physical layer (PHY) convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) transmissions (figs. 3, 6-8; the TXOP representing the intended duration of the data exchange should a truncation not have occurred, divided into PPDU parts 1 and 2, at least);
establish fixed time intervals between two continuous PSDU or PPDU transmissions (fig. 3; time interval between PPDU part 1 and PPDU part 2 - no specifics are provided as to what the time interval is, thus, it is interpreted as any time separation between transmission, without any value or parameter being required by the claims);
sense an idle status of a channel after an end of each PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0060-0064, 0077; figures 14A, 14B; it may indicate it can continuously or only periodically listen during the reception of a PPDU, how often it can perform CCA during a PPDU); and
cause to send a first suspend request (SR) control frame after an end of receiving a current PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0095, 0127; a preemption indication is transmitted - there appears to be no connection between sensing a channel and sending a suspend request in the claim as it stands, also no clear indication as to whether the SR is caused so the AP sends it, or the STA sends it).
Regarding claim 2 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit a time critical (TC) frame after receiving a uplink (UL) PSDU or PPDU transmission and sensing an idle status of the channel (figs. 13-15; after sPPDU, for example, a pPPDU which comprises low-latency data as described in paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 3 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to suspend a following PSDU or PPDU transmission upon sensing that the channel is busy before initiating a next PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0065, 0093; STA is seeing the medium busy and is not allowed to transmit during the duration of the data exchange between the AP and the sSTA).
Regarding claim 4 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to re-access the channel with a new TXOP to trigger a previous uplink (UL) station device (STA) to send an uplink packet (fig. 15, paragraph 0115; the AP may contend for the medium for the AC of the low latency traffic for pSTA and obtains a new TXOP when the medium is free).
Regarding claim 5 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to send a trigger frame to the previous UL STA to resume a UL PSDU or PPDU transmission after a specific time interval following a reception of a block acknowledgment (BA) frame (paragraphs 0058-0061; characteristics of a data exchange between the AP and pSTA can be negotiated, e.g., if the transmission from pSTA should be preceded by a trigger from the AP).
Regarding claim 7 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive a second SR control frame causing a UL STA transmitting a UL PSDU or PPDU to suspend a following PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0086-0090; wherein the process may repeat itself, prompting a second preemption indication to be sent to suspend upcoming data transmission).
Regarding claim 8 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to provide an indication when an SR preemption is allowed and a permission to preempt a TXOP transmission (paragraph 0073, 0091; truncation notification).
Regarding claim 9 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the indication is included in a first UL PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0073, 0091; an indication of an LLTS with a truncation notification during an ongoing exchange of data units with the second communication device).
Regarding claim 10 Ciochina discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (paragraphs 0020, 0133) storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations comprising:
dividing a transmit opportunity (TXOP) transmission into physical layer convergence procedure service data unit (PSDU) or physical layer (PHY) convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) transmissions (figs. 3, 6-8; the TXOP representing the intended duration of the data exchange should a truncation not have occurred, divided into PPDU parts 1 and 2, at least);
establishing fixed time intervals between two continuous PSDU or PPDU transmissions (fig. 3; time interval between PPDU part 1 and PPDU part 2 - no specifics are provided as to what the time interval is, thus, it is interpreted as any time separation between transmission, without any value or parameter being required by the claims);
sensing an idle status of a channel after an end of each PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0060-0064, 0077; figures 14A, 14B; it may indicate it can continuously or only periodically listen during the reception of a PPDU, how often it can perform CCA during a PPDU); and
causing to send a first suspend request (SR) control frame after an end of receiving a current PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0095, 0127; a preemption indication is transmitted - there appears to be no connection between sensing a channel and sending a suspend request in the claim as it stands, also no clear indication as to whether the SR is caused so the AP sends it, or the STA sends it).
Regarding claim 11 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a time critical (TC) frame after receiving a uplink (UL) PSDU or PPDU transmission and sensing an idle status of the channel (figs. 13-15; after sPPDU, for example, a pPPDU which comprises low-latency data as described in paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 12 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise suspending a following PSDU or PPDU transmission upon sensing that the channel is busy before initiating a next PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0065, 0093; STA is seeing the medium busy and is not allowed to transmit during the duration of the data exchange between the AP and the sSTA).
Regarding claim 13 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise re-accessing the channel with a new TXOP to trigger a previous uplink (UL) station device (STA) to send an uplink packet (fig. 15, paragraph 0115; the AP may contend for the medium for the AC of the low latency traffic for pSTA and obtains a new TXOP when the medium is free).
Regarding claim 14 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise sending a trigger frame to the previous UL STA to resume a UL PSDU or PPDU transmission after a specific time interval following a reception of a block acknowledgment (BA) frame (paragraphs 0058-0061; characteristics of a data exchange between the AP and pSTA can be negotiated, e.g., if the transmission from pSTA should be preceded by a trigger from the AP).
Regarding claim 16 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise receiving a second SR control frame causing a UL STA transmitting a UL PSDU or PPDU to suspend a following PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0086-0090; wherein the process may repeat itself, prompting a second preemption indication to be sent to suspend upcoming data transmission).
Regarding claim 17 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise providing an indication when an SR preemption is allowed and a permission to preempt a TXOP transmission (paragraph 0073, 0091; truncation notification).
Regarding claim 18 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the indication is included in a first UL PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0073, 0091; an indication of an LLTS with a truncation notification during an ongoing exchange of data units with the second communication device).
Regarding claim 19 Ciochina discloses a method comprising:
dividing a transmit opportunity (TXOP) transmission into physical layer convergence procedure service data unit (PSDU) or physical layer (PHY) convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) transmissions (figs. 3, 6-8; the TXOP representing the intended duration of the data exchange should a truncation not have occurred, divided into PPDU parts 1 and 2, at least);
establishing fixed time intervals between two continuous PSDU or PPDU transmissions (fig. 3; time interval between PPDU part 1 and PPDU part 2 - no specifics are provided as to what the time interval is, thus, it is interpreted as any time separation between transmission, without any value or parameter being required by the claims);
sensing an idle status of a channel after an end of each PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0060-0064, 0077; figures 14A, 14B; it may indicate it can continuously or only periodically listen during the reception of a PPDU, how often it can perform CCA during a PPDU); and
causing to send a first suspend request (SR) control frame after an end of receiving a current PSDU or PPDU transmission (paragraphs 0095, 0127; a preemption indication is transmitted - there appears to be no connection between sensing a channel and sending a suspend request in the claim as it stands, also no clear indication as to whether the SR is caused so the AP sends it, or the STA sends it).
Regarding claim 20 Ciochina discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising transmitting a time critical (TC) frame after receiving a uplink (UL) PSDU or PPDU transmission and sensing an idle status of the channel (figs. 13-15; after sPPDU, for example, a pPPDU which comprises low-latency data as described in paragraph 0089).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciochina in view of Ryu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0163922; hereinafter Ryu – with support from Provisional 63/383,124 dated 11/10/2022; citations below from the Provisional).
Regarding claim 6 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 1. Ciochina fails to explicitly disclose but Ryu, in the same field of endeavor related to preemption for low-latency transmission, discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) to access the channel to transmit a TC frame (pages 6 and 10 of the Provisional; perform the contention-based channel access (e.g., EDCA channel access) to obtain the TXOP for scheduling of low latency frame transmission after transmitting the TXOP preemption request frame or not transmitting the CTS frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ciochina with the teachings of Ryu, in order to reduce latency for sensitive traffic (Ryu: page 2).
Regarding claim 15 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10. Ciochina fails to explicitly disclose but Ryu, in the same field of endeavor related to preemption for low-latency transmission, discloses wherein the operations further comprise executing enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) to access the channel to transmit a TC frame (pages 6 and 10 of the Provisional; perform the contention-based channel access (e.g., EDCA channel access) to obtain the TXOP for scheduling of low latency frame transmission after transmitting the TXOP preemption request frame or not transmitting the CTS frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ciochina with the teachings of Ryu, in order to reduce latency for sensitive traffic (Ryu: page 2).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2024/0129952 to Hedayat et al. – which discloses methods for transmission preemption in a wireless local area network. An access point wireless device may establish a wireless association with another wireless device. A first data transmission may be initiated. The transmitting wireless device may determine to preempt the first data transmission prior to its completion. The transmitting wireless device may transmit signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted.
US PGPUB 2025/0056590 to Verenzuela et al. – that is directed to low latency third party preemption and enables low latency (LL) devices to send a low latency indication (also called “even indication”), e.g. a LL indication frame (LL_IF), that intentionally overlaps with an ongoing PPDU to indicate the presence of LL traffic while not disrupting the reception of the ongoing PPDU transmission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aixa A Guadalupe-Cruz whose telephone number is (571)270-7523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6AM - 4:00PM.
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.
/Aixa Guadalupe-Cruz/
Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466