DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed on 10/10/2025, claims 1- 20 are pending for examinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the remarks on 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6, 5- 8 lines of the remarks applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully disagrees that Sony discloses or suggests either "receiving, by the AP from the STA, a non-trigger-based frame during the TE r-TWT SP" or "sending, by the AP to the STA, a second frame for suspending contention-based channel access by the STA during the TE r-TWT SP," for at least the following reasons”. Further on same page 6 first paragraph applicant argues, “…Sony, slide 14. Sony's IndB is sent to secondary users to enable contention-based channel access. As such, Sony's IndB is not sent to STA1 unless STA1 is also a secondary user (Sony, slide 5)...”
Examiner disagrees and respectfully submits that Sony on slide 6 teaches about STA1 transmits UL PPDU to the AP which can be a non-trigger-based frame during R-TWT-SP. Further Sony teaches in slide 5 regarding AP transmits IndB once it collects STA’s indication and transmits a releases indication. Further examiner cited slide 5 there is no indication that release indication is for secondary. Applicant cites slide 14 of Sony (which was not cited by examiner). Nevertheless secondary reference Samsung teaches in slide 4 regarding AP does basic triggering after that STA send UL PPDU as a non-trigger based frame during r-TWT interval; now refer to slide 7 Once an rTWT scheduled STA is done transmitting latency-sensitive traffic, and there is still time left in the restricted TWT SP, then the STA can report its buffer status to the rTWT scheduling AP. The buffer status shall contain the queue sizes of all TIDs corresponding to its latency-sensitive traffic…
If the AP receives BSR from an rTWT scheduled STA indicating empty buffer for latency-sensitive traffic, the rTWT scheduling AP can terminate the restricted TWT SP for that particular scheduled STA if downlink buffer for latency sensitive traffic for that STA is also empty.
AP can transmit an individually addressed QoS Data or QoS Null frame with EOSP subfield equal to 1
AP can send an individually addressed frame with More Data field set to 0.
Hence Sony in view of Samsung teaches "receiving, by the AP from the STA, a non-trigger-based frame during the TE r-TWT SP" and "sending, by the AP to the STA, a second frame for suspending contention-based channel access by the STA during the TE r-TWT SP," for at least the following reasons”.
Further on same page 6 last paragraph applicant argues, “Second, Sony also does not disclose or suggest "receiving, by the AP from the STA, a non- trigger-based frame during the TE r-TWT SP" of claim 1. As mentioned above, Sony does not disclose or suggest its r-TWT SP is a trigger-enabled restricted target wake time service period, so Sony does not disclose or suggest STA1 transmits its UL PPDU (alleged "receiving, by the AP from the STA, a non-trigger-based frame") during a TE r-TWT SP”.
Examiner respectfully submits that it has been already discussed above. Please refer to above paragraph.
On page 7 first paragraph applicant argues, “Third, Samsung does not cure the above deficiencies of Sony with respect to claim 1. The Office proposes modifying Sony to include Samsung's r-TWT set-up (OA, p. 3). However, modifying Sony with Samsung's r-TWT set-up, as proposed, would not result in Sony's STA1 sending a non-trigger-based frame to the AP during a TE r-TWT SP, for example. Samsung does not explicitly disclose a "trigger-enabled r-TWT SP," but the Office attempts to read the claimed TE r-TWT SP on Samsung's r-TWT SP in cited slide 4, which shows a r-TWT SP during which the AP sends a basic trigger frame to initiate STAs sending data. Without conceding to this attempted reading of Samsung, even if Samsung's r-TWT set up were attempted to be applied to Sony modifies Sony's r-TWT SP to include the AP-sent basic trigger frame, then, a frame sent by STA1 during the r-TWT SP after the basic trigger frame was sent would not be a "non-trigger- based frame" as in claim 1. That is, there is no disclosure in Samsung or Sony indicating that an AP receives a "non-trigger-based frame" from a STA during a TE r-TWT SP. Further, Samsung does not disclose or suggest "sending, by the AP to the STA, a second frame for suspending contention-based channel access by the STA during the TE r-TWT SP" of claim 1”.
Examiner disagrees and respectfully submits that reference Samsung teaches in slide 4 regarding AP does basic triggering then STA send UL PPDU as a non-trigger based frame during r-TWT interval; now refer to slide 7 Once an rTWT scheduled STA is done transmitting latency-sensitive traffic, and there is still time left in the restricted TWT SP, then the STA can report its buffer status to the rTWT scheduling AP. The buffer status shall contain the queue sizes of all TIDs corresponding to its latency-sensitive traffic…
If the AP receives BSR from an rTWT scheduled STA indicating empty buffer for latency-sensitive traffic, the rTWT scheduling AP can terminate the restricted TWT SP for that particular scheduled STA if downlink buffer for latency sensitive traffic for that STA is also empty.
AP can transmit an individually addressed QoS Data or QoS Null frame with EOSP subfield equal to 1
AP can send an individually addressed frame with More Data field set to 0.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “primary and secondary user in R-TWT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cire#3, hereafter SONY in view of “IEEE 802.11 Handling Fairness issue in restricted TwT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cite#2, hereafter Samsung.
Regarding claim 1, Sony teaches a method comprising:
sending, by an access point (AP) to a station (STA), a first frame indicating a trigger-enabled (TE) restricted target wake time (r-TWT) service period (SP) for the AP and the STA; receiving, by the AP from the STA, a non-trigger-based frame during the TE r-TWT SP(see slide 6 STA1 transmits UL PPDU to the AP); and sending, by the AP to the STA, a second frame for suspending contention-based channel access by the STA during the TE r-TWT SP (see slide 5: AP transmits IndB which indicates releases the release of contention based data transmissions for STA1).Sony teaches about the procedures within the r-TWT service period and not how it is previously set up; however Samsung teaches that the rTWT SP is indicated to the STA with a frame sent from the AP (see slide 4: transmission of the beacon prior to the r-TWT SP). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Samsung with the teachings of Sony to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein sending, by an access point (AP) to a station (STA), a first frame indicating a trigger-enabled (TE) restricted target wake time (r-TWT) service period (SP) for the AP and the STA; greater way resources can be utilized/managed in the communication system.
Regarding claim 2, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, wherein the non-trigger-based frame comprises at least one of latency-sensitive data or high priority data; Sony see slide 7 low latency data.
Regarding claim 4, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, wherein the second frame comprises at least one of:
a data frame,
a control frame,
a management frame,
an action frame, or
a trigger frame; Sony see slide 6 BACK frame or separate frame (TBD).
Regarding claim 7, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, wherein the second frame comprises an indication to suspend contention-based channel access by the STA during the TE r-TWT SP; Sony already discussed above see slide 6.
Regarding claim 9, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, wherein the second frame is an immediate response frame; Sony see slide 6.
Regarding claim 10, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, wherein the receiving the non-trigger-based frame comprises receiving the non-trigger-based frame via contention-based channel access; Sony see slide 6.
Regarding claim 11, Sony teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a station (STA) from an access point (AP), a first frame indicating a trigger-enabled (TE) restricted target wake time (r-TWT) service period (SP) for the AP and the STA; sending, by the STA to the AP, a non-trigger-based frame during the TE r-TWT SP(see slide 6 STA1 transmits UL PPDU to the AP); and receiving, by the STA from the AP, a second frame for suspending contention-based channel access by the STA during the TE r-TWT SP based on the second frame (see slide 5: AP transmits IndB which indicates releases the release of contention based data transmissions for STA1).Sony teaches about the procedures within the r-TWT service period and not how it is previously set up; however Samsung teaches that the rTWT SP is indicated to the STA with a frame sent from the AP (see slide 4: transmission of the beacon prior to the r-TWT SP). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Samsung with the teachings of Sony to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein receiving, by a station (STA) from an access point (AP), a first frame indicating a trigger-enabled (TE) restricted target wake time (r-TWT) service period (SP) for the AP and the STA; greater way resources can be utilized/managed in the communication system.
Regarding claim 13, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 11, wherein the sending the non-trigger-based frame comprises sending the non-trigger-based frame via contention-based channel access; Sony see slide 6.
Regarding claim 17, Sony teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a station (STA) from an access point (AP), a first frame indicating a trigger-enabled (TE) restricted target wake time (r-TWT) service period (SP) for the AP and the STA; sending, by the STA to the AP, a non-trigger-based frame during the TE r-TWT SP(see slide 6 STA1 transmits UL PPDU to the AP); and
enabling based on a trigger frame not being received from the AP during a first time period, contention based channel access for the STA during the TE r-TWT SP (see slide 6 Figure shows that STA1 sends UL PPDU after a first time period);
receiving after the first time period from the AP, a second frame; and disabling based on the receiving the second frame the contention based channel access for the STA during the TE r-TWT SP (see slide 6 Figure shows that after STA 1 sending PPDU, AP collecting all STA’s indication, transmitting indB (i.e. second frame) which is release/disable indciation; further see slides 4- 5. Sony teaches about the procedures within the r-TWT service period and not how it is previously set up; however Samsung teaches that the rTWT SP is indicated to the STA with a frame sent from the AP (see slide 4: transmission of the beacon prior to the r-TWT SP). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Samsung with the teachings of Sony to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein receiving, by a station (STA) from an access point (AP), a first frame indicating a trigger-enabled (TE) restricted target wake time (r-TWT) service period (SP) for the AP and the STA; greater way resources can be utilized/managed in the communication system.
Regarding claim 18, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 17, sending, to the AP via contention-based channel access, a non-tngger-based frame; Sony already discussed above see slides 5- 6.
Regarding claim 19, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 17, wherein the disabling the contention-based channel access is based on an indication, in the second frame, that contention-based channel access should be suspended; Sony already discussed above see slide 6.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “primary and secondary user in R-TWT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cire#3, hereafter SONY in view of “IEEE 802.11 Handling Fairness issue in restricted TwT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cite#2, hereafter Samsung and in further view of Yonge III et al. (US Pat. No. 7916746 B2), hereafter Yonge.
Regarding claim 3, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, but Sony is silent about determining, based on the receiving the non-trigger-based frame, that contention-based channel access is enabled for the STA; however Yonge teaches in abstract about Access contention by a station having a frame to be transmitted includes detecting contention control information for a contention period and determining from the contention control information if the station is permitted to contend for access to a transmission medium to which the stations are connected during the contention period. When a contention control indicator is detected for a contention period, a station having a frame to transmit determines from the contention control indicator if it is permitted to contend for access to the transmission medium during the contention period; further see lines 30- 60 of col. 11. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Yonge with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein determining, based on the receiving the non-trigger-based frame, that contention-based channel access is enabled for the STA; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Claim(s) 5, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “primary and secondary user in R-TWT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cire#3, hereafter SONY in view of “IEEE 802.11 Handling Fairness issue in restricted TwT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cite#2, hereafter Samsung and in further view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0334487 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, but Sony is silent about wherein the second frame is configured to cause the STA to send traffic associated with the TE r-TWT during the TE r-TWT SP; however Yang teaches in [0064] about .. based on an implementation of the second indication information in the second frame, the first STA in the BSS in which the first AP is located does not need to be restricted by the r-TWT SP information of the OBSS in a process of performing traffic corresponding to some TIDs, to ensure that traffic (for example, high-priority traffic or traffic requiring a low latency) of the first STA in the BSS in which the first AP is located is performed. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Yang with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 14, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 11, but Sony is silent about sending, via contention-free channel access based on the receiving the second frame, a data frame comprising a traffic identifier associated with the TE r-TWT; however Yang teaches in [0064] about .. based on an implementation of the second indication information in the second frame, the first STA in the BSS in which the first AP is located does not need to be restricted by the r-TWT SP information of the OBSS in a process of performing traffic corresponding to some TIDs, to ensure that traffic (for example, high-priority traffic or traffic requiring a low latency) of the first STA in the BSS in which the first AP is located is performed. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Yang with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “primary and secondary user in R-TWT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cire#3, hereafter SONY in view of “IEEE 802.11 Handling Fairness issue in restricted TwT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cite#2, hereafter Samsung and in further view of “comment resolutions for restricted TWT SP”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cire#1, hereafter Sunhee.
Regarding claim 6, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, but Sony is silent about wherein the second frame indicates an extension of a duration of the TE r-TWT SP; however Sunhee teaches about .. how to extend the end time of the restricted TWT SP. There can be two options to signaling of the extension from AP to the member STAs….; see page 3. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Sunhee with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 15, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 11, but Sony is silent about extending, based on the second frame, a time duration of the TE r-TWT SP; however Sunhee teaches about .. how to extend the end time of the restricted TWT SP. There can be two options to signaling of the extension from AP to the member STAs….; see page 3. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Sunhee with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 8, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “primary and secondary user in R-TWT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cire#3, hereafter SONY in view of “IEEE 802.11 Handling Fairness issue in restricted TwT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cite#2, hereafter Samsung and in further view of Wentink (US Pub. No. 2016/0353484 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 1, but Sony is silent about wherein the second frame comprises an indication of a start time for suspending contention-based channel access by the STA; however Wentink teaches in [0056] about .. AP 110 may transmit a CTS frame 402, also indicating the requested duration of the SAI 410, in response to RTS frame 401. Note that while time sequence diagram 400 shows AP 110 transmitting CTS frame 402, in practice the CTS frame 402 may be transmitted by any suitable STA or AP in the wireless network (e.g., such as STA2 or STA3). SAI-capable devices (e.g., AP 110, STA1 and STA2) may receive the CTS frame 402, set their respective NAVs to the duration indicated by CTS frame 402, and defer from accessing the medium using random access mechanisms (e.g., contention-based channel access mechanisms defined by the IEEE 802.11 standards). STA3—which may be a legacy device—may also receive CTS frame 402. In response, STA3 may set its NAV 404 to the duration indicated by CTS frame 402, and defer from medium access for the duration of the SAI 410.; further see [0057]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Wentink with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 16, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 11, but Sony is silent about wherein the suspending contention-based channel access by the STA during the TE r-TWT SP is based on timing information in the second frame; however Wentink teaches in [0056] about .. AP 110 may transmit a CTS frame 402, also indicating the requested duration of the SAI 410, in response to RTS frame 401. Note that while time sequence diagram 400 shows AP 110 transmitting CTS frame 402, in practice the CTS frame 402 may be transmitted by any suitable STA or AP in the wireless network (e.g., such as STA2 or STA3). SAI-capable devices (e.g., AP 110, STA1 and STA2) may receive the CTS frame 402, set their respective NAVs to the duration indicated by CTS frame 402, and defer from accessing the medium using random access mechanisms (e.g., contention-based channel access mechanisms defined by the IEEE 802.11 standards). STA3—which may be a legacy device—may also receive CTS frame 402. In response, STA3 may set its NAV 404 to the duration indicated by CTS frame 402, and defer from medium access for the duration of the SAI 410.; further see [0057]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Wentink with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 20, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 17, but Sony is silent about wherein the second frame comprises an indication of a start time for suspending contention-based channel access for the STA; however Wentink teaches in [0056] about .. AP 110 may transmit a CTS frame 402, also indicating the requested duration of the SAI 410, in response to RTS frame 401. Note that while time sequence diagram 400 shows AP 110 transmitting CTS frame 402, in practice the CTS frame 402 may be transmitted by any suitable STA or AP in the wireless network (e.g., such as STA2 or STA3). SAI-capable devices (e.g., AP 110, STA1 and STA2) may receive the CTS frame 402, set their respective NAVs to the duration indicated by CTS frame 402, and defer from accessing the medium using random access mechanisms (e.g., contention-based channel access mechanisms defined by the IEEE 802.11 standards). STA3—which may be a legacy device—may also receive CTS frame 402. In response, STA3 may set its NAV 404 to the duration indicated by CTS frame 402, and defer from medium access for the duration of the SAI 410.; further see [0057]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Wentink with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “primary and secondary user in R-TWT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cire#3, hereafter SONY in view of “IEEE 802.11 Handling Fairness issue in restricted TwT”; see IDS filed on 12/6/2023, page 2 cite#2, hereafter Samsung and in further view of Turunen et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0192724 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sony in view of Samsung teaches as per claim 11, but Sony is silent about enabling, based on a trigger-frame not being received during a first time period of the TE r-TWT SP contention-based channel access during the TE r-TWT SP; however Turunen teaches in abstract about enabling contention based access. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Turunen with the teachings of Sony in view of Samsung to make system more standardized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference Shafin et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0361194 A1) states in Fig. 4 and [0055- 0058] regarding sending, by an access point (AP) to a station (STA), a first frame indicating a trigger-enabled (TE) restricted target wake time (r-TWT) service period (SP) for the AP and the STA; receiving, by the AP from the STA, a non-trigger-based frame during the TE r-TWT SP; and sending, by the AP to the STA, a second frame for suspending contention-based channel access by the STA during the TE r-TWT SP; see [0057- 0058] in context with [0055].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. PST.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479