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 .
Responsive to amendments filed on 05/11/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered. The primary argument presented is regarding the amended claims, and they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented below and that were necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 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. The claims as amended recite the acronym PCF without appropriate definition as to what it stands for. Proper clarification is respectfully requested.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciochina-Kar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0308943; hereinafter Ciochina) in view of Ciochina-Kar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0136386; hereinafter Kar).
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).
Ciochina fails to explicitly disclose but Kar, in the same field of endeavor related to TXOP preemption, discloses wherein the fixed time intervals are PCF Interframe Space (PIFS) time gaps (paragraphs 0067, 0070, 0111; certain STAs may request TXOPs, which are defined such that in between a number of PPDUs a waiting time of e.g. PIFS is defined). 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 Kar, in order to allow efficient communication of low latency traffic (Kar: paragraph 0019).
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 6 Ciochina discloses the device of claim 1. Ciochina fails to explicitly disclose but Kar, 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 (paragraphs 0086-0088, 0098, 0136, 0190-0205; wherein the device (AP or STA) can perform contention (and EDCA parameters to contend) for the channel to transmit low latency traffic). 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 Kar, in order to allow efficient communication of low latency traffic (Kar: paragraph 0019).
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).
Ciochina fails to explicitly disclose but Kar, in the same field of endeavor related to TXOP preemption, discloses wherein the fixed time intervals are PCF Interframe Space (PIFS) time gaps (paragraphs 0067, 0070, 0111; certain STAs may request TXOPs, which are defined such that in between a number of PPDUs a waiting time of e.g. PIFS is defined). 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 Kar, in order to allow efficient communication of low latency traffic (Kar: paragraph 0019).
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 15 Ciochina discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10. Ciochina fails to explicitly disclose but Kar, 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 (paragraphs 0086-0088, 0098, 0136, 0190-0205; wherein the device (AP or STA) can perform contention (and EDCA parameters to contend) for the channel to transmit low latency traffic). 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 Kar, in order to allow efficient communication of low latency traffic (Kar: paragraph 0019).
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).
Ciochina fails to explicitly disclose but Kar, in the same field of endeavor related to TXOP preemption, discloses wherein the fixed time intervals are PCF Interframe Space (PIFS) time gaps (paragraphs 0067, 0070, 0111; certain STAs may request TXOPs, which are defined such that in between a number of PPDUs a waiting time of e.g. PIFS is defined). 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 Kar, in order to allow efficient communication of low latency traffic (Kar: paragraph 0019).
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).
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights