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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicants first argue that Examiner must provide “a rationale or evidence” for Examiners assertion that aspects of the claimed invention are “inherent generic components”. The components in question are a recitation of a “A first device, comprising: a processor; and a storage medium coupled to the processor and storing computer instructions for execution by the processor, the instructions configured to cause the first device to” from Claim 6 and the “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” of claim 13. These are prima facie generic components. A device of any kind capable of wireless communication must have these. However, if Applicants wish for a direct citation, Figure 2B of Josiam is a diagram of a STA, comprised of at least a controller/processor connected to memory. The clarification is made below however Applicants amended claim necessitates the new ground of rejection. Examiner maintains that the assertion that a processor and memory are well known in the art as generic but required components for a wireless device. Per MPEP 2144.03 Section D, providing a new citation from Josiam as evidence to support what Applicants seem to construe as Examiner taking official notice doe not itself prevent this action being made Final. Josiam is not a new reference. However, amendment of the claims to specify the trigger frame as a “modified multi-user request to send (mMu-RTS)” does necessitate a new grounds of rejection in view of Huang et al (US 2017/0006542).
With respect to Yang and the “QoS data frame”. This term is defined by the claim by its function, that it “carries first indication information”. The “RDG/More PPDU bit” of Yang as cited in the prior office action meets this function. It is carried within a frame and indicates that the remainder of the TXOP can be granted to the AP. By this the AP recovers the remainder of the TXOP. If the specification contains details regarding further contents of this QoS data frame and corresponding functions, it must be claimed per MPEP 2111.01(II). If this term/frame is commonly known in the art, Applicants have presented no persuasive evidence to that fact.
Finally, remarks with respect to claim 2 have been considered but are rendered moot largely in view of the amended claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josiam et al. (US 2016/0262173, Josiam hereafter) in view of Yang et al. (US 2014/0086227, Yang hereafter.) and further in view of
RE claims 1, 6 and 13, Josiam discloses a method, first device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising: a processor; and a storage medium coupled to the processor (Figure 2B, STA. Processor and memory.) and storing computer instructions for execution by the processor, the instructions configured to cause the first device to: send a trigger frame to a second device, wherein the trigger frame indicates that a time resource is allocated by the first device from an obtained transmission opportunity (TXOP) to the second device (Paragraph 32 discloses “a station (STA) transmits the UL data corresponding to the AC information, identified by the traffic identifier (TID), based on the scheduling information included in the received trigger frame over a granted UL access channel using a UL-multiuser (UL-MU) transmission and receives a multiuser-block acknowledgement (MU-BA) from the AP, wherein the MU-BA includes one or more acknowledgements indicating a successful transmission of the UL data to the AP. In such embodiments, the scheduling information included in the trigger frame comprises duration of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) and a size of a medium access control (MAC) service data unit (MSDU) for the UL data to be transmitted to the AP”);
Josiam does not explicitly disclose the trigger frame is a modified multi-user request to send (mMu-RTS); receiving a quality of service (QoS) data frame from the second device, wherein the QoS data frame carries first indication information, wherein the first indication information indicates that the second device has stopped using the time resource; and recover permission to use the TXOP based on the QoS data frame.
However, Yang teaches receiving a quality of service (QoS) data frame from the second device, wherein the QoS data frame carries first indication information, wherein the first indication information indicates that the second device has stopped using the time resource; and recover permission to use the TXOP based on the QoS data frame (Paragraphs 18-20 teaches “Within a transmission opportunity TXOP of a first station, if the TXOP is not over after the first station finishes sending data to an access point AP, the first station, as a reverse direction protocol initiator, grants a remaining part of the TXOP to the access point AP.” and “When finishing the transmission, the first station STA1 sets an RDG/More PPDU bit to 1 in a last frame to indicate that a remaining TXOP is granted to a transmission object.”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, first device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Josiam with the teachings of Yang in order to improve channel utilization.
Josiam in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose the trigger frame is a modified multi-user request to send (mMu-RTS).
However, Huang teaches the trigger frame is a modified multi-user request to send (mMu-RTS) (Paragraph 102, “Example 1 is an apparatus of a station. The apparatus comprising a memory and processing circuitry coupled to the memory. The processing circuitry configured to: associate with a master station; decode a trigger frame or a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame from the master station, wherein the trigger frame or the MU-RTS frame comprises a first duration and a transmitter address).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, first device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Josiam in view of Yang with the teachings of Huang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (MU-RTS as or instead of a trigger frame) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 11, Josiam in view of Yang discloses the first device of claim 6 as set forth above. Note that Josiam further discloses wherein the first device is an access point (Paragraph 32, an AP transmits the trigger frame).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josiam in view of Yang and further in view of Seok (US 2014/0307602).
RE claims 8 and 15, Josiam in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 2, first device of claim 7 and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13 as set forth above. Josiam in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the QoS data frame further carries second indication information, wherein the second indication information indicates whether the second device further needs a time resource for data transmission.
However, Seok teaches wherein the QoS data frame further carries second indication information, wherein the second indication information indicates whether the second device further needs a time resource for data transmission (Paragraph 135 teaches “When the RDG/More PPDU field is configured as `1`, it may be interpreted as indicating another PPDU is transmitted following the PPDU including the field” Examiner interprets the indication of another PPDU as indicating that a further time resource is needed by the device that responds with it).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, first device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Josiam in view of Yang with the teachings of Seok since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 4-5, 9-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josiam in view of Yang and further Boger et al. (US 2021/0329551, Boger hereafter).
RE claims 4, 9 and 16, Josiam in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, first device of claim 6 and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13 as set forth above. Josiam in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein an A-control field in the QoS data frame comprises the first indication information (Paragraphs 39-40 and Figures 5 and 6, corresponding to the same in provisional 63/012,063, teaches the RDG/More PPDU field may be transmitted in a control information subfield, the contents of which are identified as a command and control (CAS) subfield A-control subfield ID value of 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, first device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Josiam in view of Yang with the teachings of Boger since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 5, 10 and 17, Josiam in view of Yang and further in view of Boger discloses the method of claim 4, first device of claim 9 and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Boger further teaches wherein a control identifier in the A-control field is a value indicating that the A-control field is a command and status (CAS) control field; and the first indication information is carried in a reverse grant (RDG) subfield in the CAS control field (Paragraphs 39-40 and Figures 5 and 6, corresponding to the same in provisional 63/012,063, teaches the RDG/More PPDU field may be transmitted in a control information subfield, the contents of which are identified as a command and control (CAS) subfield A-control subfield ID value of 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, first device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Josiam in view of Yang with the teachings of Boger since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josiam in view of Yang and further in view of Verma et al. (US 2021/0111855, Verma hereafter).
RE claim 12, Josiam in view of Yang discloses the first device of claim 6 as set forth above. Josiam in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first device is a chip.
However, Verma teaches wherein the first device is a chip (Paragraph teaches an AP may be embodied as a “chip, SoC, chipset, package or device”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, first device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Josiam in view of Yang with the teachings of Verma since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
RE claims 2, 7 and 14, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest a modified MU-RTS (mMU-RTS) frame comprising a first field and a second field, wherein the first field indicates a remaining time resource of the TXOP, and the second field indicates the time resource allocated to the second device.
RE claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 2 and thereby includes the allowable features set forth above.
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 James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461