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 action is in response to the application filed on 13 July 2023.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 October 2023, 30 November 2023, 14 July 2024, 18 March 2024, 12 May 2026 and 26 June 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US Publication 2018/0302201) in view of Bravo et al. (US Publication 2021/0084667).
With respect to claims 1 and 17, Yoo teaches An apparatus comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause an Access Point (AP) (AP antenna and controller/processor, figure 7) to:
determine that (gNB 105c observes that contention SRS 503 was either not detected or detected below a pre-define energy threshold. Accordingly, gNB 105c determines to initiate downlink transmissions to UE, paragraph 88) and
allow the AP to obtain a Transmit Opportunity (TxOP) for transmission of downlink (DL) data to one or more STAs. (Accordingly, gNB 105c determines to initiate downlink transmissions to UE, paragraph 88)
Yoo doesn’t teach determine that a high-priority contention period is to be initiated during a particular contention period; and allow the AP to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period according to a high-priority contention policy.
Bravo teaches determine that a high-priority contention period is to be initiated during a particular contention period (requirement to create a preemption period between transmission durations within the TXOP to give opportunity for high priority traffic to preempt the wireless channel during the TXOP, paragraph 35)
allow the AP to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period according to a high-priority contention policy (A mix of AP STAs and non-AP STAs can contend for the wireless channel, but different rules for backoff are assigned for the AP STAs and the non-AP STAs, i.e., a lower backoff counter for the AP STAs to prioritize them, paragraph 45)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Yoo with allow the AP to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period according to a high-priority contention policy as taught by Bravo. The motivation for combining Yoo and Bravo is to be able to optimize low latency applications and high throughput application.
With respect to claim 12, Yoo teaches wherein the reservation signal comprises a preset reservation sequence. (RTS is signaled by the transmitter to announce its intent to transmit, while CTS is signaled by the receiver to announce its intent to reserve the medium for reception. In systems utilizing channel reciprocity, sounding reference signals (SRS) transmitted from UEs may serve as an RTS/CTS signal, depending on whether the UE is the transmitter or receiver in the communication pair. However, neighboring nodes blindly assuming that all SRS transmissions imply an RTS/CTS signal results in inefficient operation. Because detection of RTS/CTS may result in the neighboring node backing-off of intended transmissions, the assumption that all SRS are RTS/CTS could result in the neighbor node delaying transmissions when a legacy SRS has been transmitted. The legacy SRS does not specifically indicate that a transmission is forthcoming, paragraph 67)
With respect to claim 14, Yoo teaches configured to cause the AP to determine that the high-priority contention period is to be initiated based on a determination that a reservation signal reception time of the reservation signal indicates that a reservation signal transmission time of the reservation signal is based on an end of a predefined time duration from a start of the particular contention period. (gNB 105c observes that contention SRS 503 was either not detected or detected below a pre-define energy threshold. Accordingly, gNB 105c determines to initiate downlink transmissions to UE, paragraph 88)
With respect to claim 15, Yoo teaches comprising at least one radio to transmit the DL data from the AP. (wireless radio, figure 7)
With respect to claim 16, Yoo teaches comprising one or more antennas connected to the radio, and a processor to execute instructions of an operating system. (antenna and controller/processor, figure 7)
Claim 2, 3, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US Publication 2018/0302201) in view of Bravo et al. (US Publication 2021/0084667) further in view of Loehr et al. (US Publication 2022/0201751).
With respect to claims 2 and 18, Yoo and Bravo doesn’t teach configured to cause the AP to determine whether the AP is to be allowed to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period based on a number of failed retransmissions of the DL data
Loehr teaches configured to cause the AP to determine whether the AP is to be allowed to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period based on a number of failed retransmissions of the DL data. (the UE may increase the channel access priority class of a TB for a HARQ retransmission. In one example, if the initial transmission of a TB was done with a channel access priority class value of 3, then the UE may use a channel access priority class value of 2 for a HARQ retransmission if an initial transmission or an earlier retransmission wasn't successfully decoded, Paragraph 62)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Yoo and Bravo with determine whether the AP is to be allowed to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period based on a number of failed retransmissions of the DL data as taught by Loehr. The motivation for combining Yoo, Bravo, and Loehr is to be able to successfully decode received from another node.
With respect to claim 3, Yoo and Bravo doesn’t teach configured to cause the AP to determine whether the AP is to be allowed to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period based on a comparison between the number of failed retransmissions of the DL data and an AP retransmission threshold.
Loehr teaches configured to cause the AP to determine whether the AP is to be allowed to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period based on a number of failed retransmissions of the DL data. (the UE may increase the channel access priority class of a TB for a HARQ retransmission. In one example, if the initial transmission of a TB was done with a channel access priority class value of 3, then the UE may use a channel access priority class value of 2 for a HARQ retransmission if an initial transmission or an earlier retransmission wasn't successfully decoded, Paragraph 62)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Yoo and Bravo with determine whether the AP is to be allowed to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period based on a number of failed retransmissions of the DL data as taught by Loehr. The motivation for combining Yoo, Bravo, and Loehr is to be able to successfully decode received from another node.
Claim 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US Publication 2018/0302201) in view of Bravo et al. (US Publication 2021/0084667) further in view of Levy et al. (US Publication 2016/0330765).
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Yoo in view of Bravo doesn’t teach configured to cause the AP to transmit contention period configuration information to configure the particular contention period, wherein the contention period configuration information is configured to indicate that the particular contention period is to support transmission of high-priority data of a high- priority Access Category (AC) according to the high-priority contention policy.
Levy teaches configured to cause the AP to transmit contention period configuration information to configure the particular contention period, wherein the contention period configuration information is configured to indicate that the particular contention period is to support transmission of high-priority data of a high- priority Access Category (AC) according to the high-priority contention policy. (. An AP may dynamically allocate frame time 401 into DLCF, ULCF, and normal CSMA segments. The AP may control channel access by assigning frame time (a beacon period or multiple beacon periods) into these three segments: CSMA access for legacy STAs and other STAs (IEEE 802.11 contention based access), DLCF for the AP, and ULCF for STAs capable of EPA behavior. The AP may modify these allocations on a frame by frame basis as the number of STAs, traffic demand, and ratio of STAs supporting channel access based on EPA to legacy STAs change. Also these allocations may be usage allocations rather than based on fixed time boundaries in a frame. The ULCF and DLCF may not be continuous periods and some CSMA access may be included between the CF periods, paragraph 74)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Yoo and bravo with allow the AP to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period according to a high-priority contention policy as taught by Levy. The motivation for combining Yoo, Bravo, and Levy is to be able to enabling contention free access.
With respect to claim 11, Yoo in view of Bravo doesn’t teach wherein the reservation signal comprises a preset reservation signal having a preset format and content.
Levy teaches wherein the reservation signal comprises a preset reservation signal having a preset format and content. (the AP's aggressive use of CTS-to-self may defeat this efficiency by preventing legacy STAs from using idle portions of the ULCF, paragraph 94)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Yoo and bravo with allow the AP to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period according to a high-priority contention policy as taught by Levy. The motivation for combining Yoo, Bravo, and Levy is to be able to enabling contention free access.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US Publication 2018/0302201) in view of Bravo et al. (US Publication 2021/0084667) further in view of Amizur et al. (US Publication 2017/0171766).
With respect to claim 13, Yoo in view of Bravo doesn’t teach wherein the reservation signal has a duration of less than 10 microseconds (us).
Amizur teaches wherein the reservation signal has a duration of less than 10 microseconds (us). (the SIFS period may be less than 10 microseconds, paragraph 67)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Yoo and bravo with allow the AP to contend the wireless medium during the high-priority contention period according to a high-priority contention policy as taught by Levy. The motivation for combining Yoo, Bravo, and Levy is to be able to improve an SNR.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Omar et al. (US Publication 2024/0235750) discloses receiving from each of one or more adjacent access points (APs), at an AP, a signal containing values of one or more parameters related to data transmission; determining, at the AP, whether the values of the one or more parameters are greater than respective predetermined thresholds for the one or more parameters; and responsive to the values of the one or more parameters greater than the respective predetermined thresholds, selecting, by the AP, one or more Co-APs as a first set of Co-APs from the one or more adjacent APs for sharing a transmit opportunity (TXOP)in a subsequent transmission of the AP.
Nayak et al. (US Publication 2024/0314869) discloses wireless communication performed by a first access point (AP) includes determining that the first AP and other APs of a plurality of APs want to perform joint transmission (JTX) with stations (STAs) associated with the first AP and the other APs. The method also includes initiating a JTX procedure including forming a logical AP multi-link device (MLD) or a virtual AP MLD with the other APs to perform JTX.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3652. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khalid Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3370. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAHI AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights