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 Office Action is in response to initial filing on 06/02/2023.
Claim 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/02/2023. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20240305995) in view of Patwardhan et al (US 20220322436).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a device (Figure 1, BSS 110-1), the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to:
generate a medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) ([0038] PSDU may include one or more MAC protocol data units (MPDUs)) associated with low latency traffic ([0102] LL (low latency) traffic may include traffic (e.g., medium access control service data unit (MSDU) or aggregate MSDU (A-MSDU)) associated with one or more LL TIDs. The Examiner notes that the limitation “ associated” with low latency traffic can be understood in many ways, including but not limited to, including traffic (e.g., medium access control service data unit (MSDU) associated with one or more LL TIDs) based on a predefined criteria ([0104] STA 1102 may determine whether a number of conditions are satisfied. … if the conditions of the OBSS PD-based SR procedure are satisfied, AP or STA 1102 may transmit a PPDU 1114 over a part of PPDU 1112 (overlapping a part of PPDU 1112 in time and frequency).);
transmit the MPDU during an ongoing OBSS PPDU transmission using an OBSS_PD spatial reuse mechanism ([0101] OBSS STA 1104 may begin transmitting a PPDU 1112 … PPDU 1112 may comprise a non-LL data frame (e.g., one or more MPDUs none of which comprising LL traffic); Figure 6 and [0008] “Overlapped Basic Service Set (OBSS) Packet Detect (PD)-based Spatial Reuse (SR) operation”); and
include an indication in a preamble of the MPDU that spatial reuse is not allowed with the MPDU by another STA ([0109] BSS PPDU includes an indication of whether LL OBSS PD-based SR is allowed over the inter-BSS PPDU. The indication of whether LL OBSS PD-based SR is allowed over the inter-BSS PPDU may be set to allow or disallow LL OBSS PD-based SR based on whether the OBSS STA/AP transmitting the inter-BSS PPDU is able to handle the increased interference that may be caused by LL OBSS PD-based SR. The indication may be set to allow LL OBSS PD-based SR when the inter-BSS PPDU does not carry LL traffic but may be set to disallow LL OBSS PD-based SR when the inter-BSS PPDU carries LL traffic. … See also [0120] and [0125]).
Kim does not expressly disclose an overlapping basic service set preamble detection (OBSS_PD) threshold for the low latency traffic.
However, Patwardhan discloses wherein SR introduces the concept of an OBSS-PD threshold, in the OBSS context, each BSS will use a unique BSS color, where SR allows the STAs in each BSS to use a less sensitive preamble detection threshold for OBSS frames, see [0013]; device operating in an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) with the network device when the neighboring network device is associated with a different BSS color than that of the network device, and frames are associated with at least one of a high-priority and low-latency traffic type, see page 8, e.g., claim 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim with the teachings of Patwardhan, the rationale being to prevent unnecessary network delays, which allows the device to disregard weak, irrelevant signals from neighboring networks, and therefore improving the spatial reuse.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the predefined criteria include identification of the MPDU as low latency traffic through a service channel selection (SCS) procedure ([0155] transmitting, by the first STA to a third STA, a second PPDU comprising the Low Latency (LL) traffic, over a part of the first PPDU, based on conditions of the SR procedure being satisfied).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the predefined criteria include an ongoing transmission being beyond a fixed time where the device not meeting minimum latency targets ([0078] The information contained in Common Info field is common to all STAs targeted by TF 700. The information may include a Trigger Type, a length, and a bandwidth of the solicited TB PPDU).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to signal a device's expectation to transmit low latency packets (FIG. 10 illustrates allowable OBSS PD level and transmit power for low latency (LL) OBSS PD-based SR. And Claim 1 states that “an indication of whether low latency (LL) overlapping basic service set (OBSS) packet detect (PD)-based spatial reuse”).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to provide an estimate of an occurrence of a transmission of the low latency packets, including bursty transmissions, transmissions at a frequency, or random transmissions (Abstract, “LL traffic for transmission;” [0143] “conditions of the LL OBSS PD-based SR procedure are satisfied. As such, STA 1704 may transmit a PPDU 1708 over a (remaining) part of PPDU 1706 (PPDU 1708 overlaps a part of PPDU 1706 in time and frequency)”).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the device of claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to include the frequency of bursty transmissions ([0039] PPDUs conforming to the IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax and/or 802.11be standard amendments may be transmitted over the 2.4 GHZ, 5 GHZ, and/or 6 GHz bands).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to use a PSR and Non-SRG-OBSS_PD_prohibited entry of a Spatial Reuse field in a universal signal field (U-SIG) ([0126] he indication may indicate disallowance of LL OBSS PD-based SR over PPDU 1406 when the SR field indicates a value corresponding to one of: LL_OBSS_PD_DISALLOW (or LL_SR_DISALLOW) or PSR_AND_NON_SRG_OBSS_PD_PROHIBITED.) or extremely high throughput signal field (EHT-SIG) to indicate that spatial reuse is not allowed on the MPDU ([0126] The signal field may comprise a U-SIG, and EHT-SIG, or an ultra-high reliability signal field (UHR-SIG) of the PHY header of PPDU 1406. For example, in an EHT PPDU, the indication may be provided in either the U-SIG or the EHT-SIG. For a TB PPDU, the indication may be provided in the U-SIG. In an embodiment, the indication of whether LL OBSS PD-based SR is allowed is provided in a spatial reuse (SR) field of the signal field. For example, the indication may indicate disallowance of LL OBSS PD-based SR over PPDU 1406 when the SR field indicates a value corresponding to one of: LL_OBSS_PD_DISALLOW (or LL_SR_DISALLOW) or PSR_AND_NON_SRG_OBSS_PD_PROHIBITED).
Claim 10 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Kim, [0041] “FIG. 2, STA 210 may include at least one processor 220, a memory 230, and at least one transceiver 240”).
Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 7, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 9, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Kim, Claim 1 “A method comprising: receiving, by a first station (STA) from a second STA”).
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20240305995) in view of Patwardhan et al (US 20220322436) further in view of Xin et al (US 12598645).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 1, but wherein the predefined criteria include a maximum lifetime for the MPDU that will expire in less than a predetermined threshold.
However, Xin disclose a maximum lifetime for the MPDU that will expire in less than a predetermined threshold (col. 12, ll. 12-14, At check 156 it is determined if the MSDU or A-MSDU of the latency sensitive traffic is the first MSDU or A-MSDU in the receive reordering buffer, check 158 is performed in which the STA checks if the expiration time of the MSDU or A-MSDU of the latency sensitive traffic is reached (or about to be reached); col. 12, ll. 29-32, if 156 and 158 that the STA retains the MSDU or A-MSDU of the latency sensitive traffic in its receive reordering buffer until it becomes the first MSDU or A-MSDU in the receive reordering buffer or the expiration time of the MSDU or A-MSDU of the latency sensitive traffic is reached; wherein the expiration time is explained as the criteria to me met (thus, condition), as stated in col. 14, ll. 40-46, “The expiration time of the MSDU of the latency sensitive traffic in this example is 3 ms which means that the receiver STA shall pass the MSDU of the latency sensitive traffic to the next MAC process in 3 ms since the MSDU of the latency sensitive traffic is received by the receiver STA and stored at its receive reordering buffer.” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim and Patwardhan with the teachings of Xin, the rationale being to support accurate quality of Service in the low latency traffic and thus compensating for downstream delays.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Patwardhan in view of Xin, Xin further discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is less than or equal to 10 ms. (Xin, col. 14, ll. 40-43, “The expiration time of the MSDU of the latency sensitive traffic in this example is 3 ms” Thus, less than 10 ms).
Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240276392 to Sehgal et al: Overlapping basic service set (OBSS) packet detection (PD) threshold for spatial reuse (SR).
US 20210360694 to Pandian et al: Adjusts one or more of a packet detect (PD) threshold, an OBSS PD threshold, or an energy detect (ED) threshold based on the determined RSSI value and the level of OBSS interference.
US 20180020460 to Hedayat et al: first Media Access Control (MAC) Protocol Data Unit (MPDU) in a downlink frame, where the first MPDU is addressed to a first set of stations and the first MPDU includes first trigger information for scheduling an uplink transmission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights