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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 31, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The outstanding rejections of Claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) and Claims 2-9 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claims 1 and 10 filed December 31, 2025.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0076251 A1) in view of Nemavat et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0269932 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ho et al. teach a control method of a wireless communication module circuit (Fig(s).1-2) comprising:
obtaining a plurality of media access control protocol data units (MPDUs) (read as “enable flexible, dynamic, and proactive reporting of low latency parameters or QoS metrics on a per-MPDU basis, not only as part of an initial negotiation between STAs, or between STAs and APs.”(Paragraph [0028])),
wherein each MPDU comprises a packet mark or a transmission descriptor with the packet mark (read as “The low latency parameters or QoS metrics can be included in the Media Access Control (MAC) header of MAC protocol data units (MPDUs), …”(Paragraph [0028]) For example, “Low latency parameters or QoS metrics can include, but not be limited to, low latency metrics, timing metrics, buffer metrics, end-to-end latency, delay, jitter, packet loss, user-experienced data rate, target transmission time, target reception time, periodicity of packet inter-arrival time, buffer unit aging timer, buffer overflow flag, buffer increase rate, and the like.”(Paragraph [0028]));
aggregating the plurality of MPDUs to generate a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (read as “A PPDU may include one or more PLCP service data units (PSDUs). The PSDUs are media access control (MAC) protocol data units (MPDUs) that have been provided from the MAC layer to the PHY layer to form the PPDU.”(Fig(s).3 @ 300 and 4 @ 400; Paragraph [0030])); and
However, Ho et al. fail to explicitly teach determining a final transmission rate setting for the PPDU according to statistics of the packet marks of the aggregated plurality of MPDUs prior to a wireless transmission of the PPDU,
wherein the final transmission rate setting is used for [[a]] the wireless transmission of the PPDU.
Nemavat et al. teach a method for determining a final transmission rate setting for the PPDU according to statistics of the packet marks of the aggregated plurality of MPDUs prior to a wireless transmission of the PPDU (read as “the capacity estimator 130 estimates an achievable transmission rate by the transmitter based on the determined capabilities and the collected information by using the rate from one of the previous AMPDUs assuming the rate has not changed more than a threshold.”(Paragraph [0062])),
wherein the final transmission rate setting is used for the wireless transmission of the PPDU. (read as achievable transmission rate (Paragraph(s) [0052] and [0062]) For example, “the capacity estimator 130 estimates transmission opportunities available for the transmitter to transmit wireless communications to the receiver based on the obtained capabilities and the collected information, estimates an achievable transmission rate by the transmitter based on the determined capabilities and the collected information, and estimates the capacity of at least one wireless stream of the wireless link based on the estimated transmission opportunities and the estimated achievable transmission rate.”(Paragraph [0052]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the capacity estimator as taught by Nemavat et al. with the wireless node(s) as taught by Ho et al. for the purpose of enhancing frame aggregation by devices in a wireless communication network.
Regarding claim 10, Ho et al. teach a wireless communication module circuit of an electronic device (Fig(s).1-2), comprising:
a media access control protocol data units (MPDU) aggregation module circuit (Fig.2 @ 205), configured to perform steps of:
obtaining a plurality of media access control protocol data units (MPDUs) (read as “enable flexible, dynamic, and proactive reporting of low latency parameters or QoS metrics on a per-MPDU basis, not only as part of an initial negotiation between STAs, or between STAs and APs.”(Paragraph [0028])),
wherein each MPDU comprises a packet mark or a transmission descriptor with the packet mark (read as “The low latency parameters or QoS metrics can be included in the Media Access Control (MAC) header of MAC protocol data units (MPDUs), …”(Paragraph [0028]) For example, “Low latency parameters or QoS metrics can include, but not be limited to, low latency metrics, timing metrics, buffer metrics, end-to-end latency, delay, jitter, packet loss, user-experienced data rate, target transmission time, target reception time, periodicity of packet inter-arrival time, buffer unit aging timer, buffer overflow flag, buffer increase rate, and the like.”(Paragraph [0028])); and
aggregating the plurality of MIPDUs to generate a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (read as “A PPDU may include one or more PLCP service data units (PSDUs). The PSDUs are media access control (MAC) protocol data units (MPDUs) that have been provided from the MAC layer to the PHY layer to form the PPDU.”(Fig(s).3 @ 300 and 4 @ 400; Paragraph [0030])); and
a mark-aware transmission rate adjustment module circuit (Fig.2 @ 245);
wherein the MPDU aggregation module circuit (Fig.2 @ 205) and/or the mark-aware transmission rate adjustment module circuit (Fig.2 @ 245).
However, Ho et al. fail to explicitly teach a method to perform the steps of:
determining a final transmission rate setting for the PPDU according to statistics of the packet marks of the aggregated plurality of MPDUs prior to a wireless transmission of the PPDU,
wherein the final transmission rate setting is used for [[a]] the wireless transmission of the PPDU.
Nemavat et al. teach a method to perform the steps of:
determining a final transmission rate setting for the PPDU according to statistics of the packet marks of the aggregated plurality of MPDUs prior to a wireless transmission of the PPDU (read as “the capacity estimator 130 estimates an achievable transmission rate by the transmitter based on the determined capabilities and the collected information by using the rate from one of the previous AMPDUs assuming the rate has not changed more than a threshold.”(Fig(s).1A @ 130 - 1B @ 130, 2 @ 130, and 3 @ 130; Paragraph [0062])),
wherein the final transmission rate setting is used for the wireless transmission of the PPDU. (read as achievable transmission rate (Fig(s).1A @ 130 - 1B @ 130, 2 @ 130, and 3 @ 130; Paragraph(s) [0052] and [0062]) For example, “the capacity estimator 130 estimates transmission opportunities available for the transmitter to transmit wireless communications to the receiver based on the obtained capabilities and the collected information, estimates an achievable transmission rate by the transmitter based on the determined capabilities and the collected information, and estimates the capacity of at least one wireless stream of the wireless link based on the estimated transmission opportunities and the estimated achievable transmission rate.”(Paragraph [0052]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the capacity estimator as taught by Nemavat et al. with the wireless node(s) as taught by Ho et al. for the purpose of enhancing frame aggregation by devices in a wireless communication network.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, and as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, Ho et al, as modified by Nemavat et al., teach a control method and a wireless communication module circuit (Fig(s).1-4) wherein the packet mark of the MPDU represents a reliability requirement of the MPDU. (read as QoS metric(s) (Paragraph [0028]))
Regarding claims 4 and 13, and as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, Ho et al, as modified by Nemavat et al., teach a control method and a wireless communication module circuit (Fig(s).1-4) further comprising:
obtaining a plurality of media access control service data units (MSDUs) (Fig.2 @ 230);
analyzing a type of each MSDU to determine the reliability requirement of the MSDU to determine the corresponding packet mark (Fig.2 @ 240), and
adding the packet mark into the MSDU or the transmission descriptor of the MSDU (Fig.2 @ 245); and
generating the plurality of MPDUs according to the plurality of MSDUs. (Fig.2 @ 205)
Regarding claims 5 and 14, and as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, Ho et al, as modified by Nemavat et al., teach a control method and a wireless communication module circuit (Fig(s).1-4) wherein the step of determining the final transmission rate setting for the PPDU according to the statistics of the packet marks of the aggregated plurality of MPDUs prior to the wireless transmission of the PPDU (Fig.2 @ 205) comprises:
determining the final transmission rate setting according to a distribution of values of the packet marks of the MPDUs (read as control information (e.g.: QoS metric) (Fig.4; Paragraph [0028])),
a count of the MPDUs with the packet marks indicating a lower reliability requirement (read as control information (e.g.: QoS metric) (Fig.4; Paragraph [0028])),
total bytes of the MPDUs with the packet marks indicating the lower reliability requirement (read as control information (e.g.: QoS metric) (Fig.4; Paragraph [0028])),
a count of the MPDUs with the packet marks indicating a higher reliability requirement (read as control information (e.g.: QoS metric) (Fig.4; Paragraph [0028])),
total bytes of the MPDUs with the packet marks indicating the higher reliability requirement (read as control information (e.g.: QoS metric) (Fig.4; Paragraph [0028])),
a ratio of the count of the MPDUs with the packet marks indicating the higher reliability requirement to the count of the MPDUs with the packet marks indicating the lower reliability requirement (read as control information (e.g.: QoS metric) (Fig.4; Paragraph [0028])), or
a ratio of the total bytes of the MPDUs with the packet marks indicating the higher reliability requirement to the total bytes of the MPDUs with the packet marks indicating the lower reliability requirement. (read as control information (e.g.: QoS metric) (Fig.4; Paragraph [0028]))
Regarding claims 6 and 15, and as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, Ho et al. teach “enable flexible, dynamic, and proactive reporting of low latency parameters or QoS metrics on a per-MPDU basis, not only as part of an initial negotiation between STAs, or between STAs and APs.”(Fig(s).1-4; Paragraph [0028])
However, Ho et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the step of determining the final transmission rate setting for the PPDU according to the statistics of the packet marks of the aggregated plurality of MPDUs prior to the wireless transmission of the PPDU comprises:
determining a first transmission rate setting;
determining a second transmission rate setting according to the first transmission rate setting and the statistics of the packet marks of the plurality of MPDUs; and
determining the final transmission rate setting according to the second transmission rate setting.
Nemavat et al. teach a method wherein the step of determining the final transmission rate setting for the PPDU according to the statistics of the packet marks of the aggregated plurality of MPDUs prior to the wireless transmission of the PPDU (read as capacity estimator (Fig(s).1A @ 130 - 1B @ 130, 2 @ 130, and 3 @ 130; Paragraph(s) [0052] and [0062])) comprises:
determining a first transmission rate setting (read as pre-specified transmission rate (Paragraph [0069]));
determining a second transmission rate setting according to the first transmission rate setting and the statistics of the packet marks of the plurality of MPDUs (read as achievable transmission rate (Paragraph [0062])); and
determining the final transmission rate setting according to the second transmission rate setting. (read as achievable transmission rate (Paragraph [0069]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the capacity estimator as taught by Nemavat et al. with the wireless node(s) as taught by Ho et al. for the purpose of enhancing frame aggregation by devices in a wireless communication network.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, and as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, Ho et al. teach “enable flexible, dynamic, and proactive reporting of low latency parameters or QoS metrics on a per-MPDU basis, not only as part of an initial negotiation between STAs, or between STAs and APs.”(Fig(s).1-4; Paragraph [0028])
However, Ho et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the second transmission rate setting is more reliable than the first transmission rate setting.
Nemavat et al. teach a method wherein the second transmission rate setting is more reliable than the first transmission rate setting. (read as achievable transmission rate (Paragraph [0062]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the capacity estimator as taught by Nemavat et al. with the wireless node(s) as taught by Ho et al. for the purpose of enhancing frame aggregation by devices in a wireless communication network.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, and as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, Ho et al. teach “enable flexible, dynamic, and proactive reporting of low latency parameters or QoS metrics on a per-MPDU basis, not only as part of an initial negotiation between STAs, or between STAs and APs.”(Fig(s).1-4; Paragraph [0028])
However, Ho et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the step of determining the second transmission rate setting according to the first transmission rate setting and the statistics of the packet marks of the plurality of MPDUs comprises:
determining the second transmission rate setting according to the first transmission rate setting,
the statistics of the packet marks of the plurality of MPDUs and a mark-aware transmission rate table,
wherein the mark-aware transmission rate table records a plurality of transmission rate settings and corresponding packet error rates.
Nemavat et al. clearly shows and discloses a wireless communication module circuit wherein the step of determining the second transmission rate setting according to the first transmission rate setting and the statistics of the packet marks of the plurality of MPDUs (Fig(s).1A @ 130 - 1B @ 130, 2 @ 130, and 3 @ 130; Paragraph(s) [0052] and [0062])) comprises:
determining the second transmission rate setting according to the first transmission rate setting (read as achievable transmission rate (Paragraph [0069])),
the statistics of the packet marks of the plurality of MPDUs and a mark-aware transmission rate table (Fig(s).1A @ 130 - 1B @ 130, 2 @ 130, and 3 @ 130),
wherein the mark-aware transmission rate table records a plurality of transmission rate settings and corresponding packet error rates. (read as packet error rates (PER) are based on RSSI/rate (Paragraph [0065]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the capacity estimator as taught by Nemavat et al. with the wireless node(s) as taught by Ho et al. for the purpose of enhancing frame aggregation by devices in a wireless communication network.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, and as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, Ho et al. teach “enable flexible, dynamic, and proactive reporting of low latency parameters or QoS metrics on a per-MPDU basis, not only as part of an initial negotiation between STAs, or between STAs and APs.”(Fig(s).1-4; Paragraph [0028])
However, Ho et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the mark-aware transmission rate table records a plurality of modulation coding scheme (MCS) indexes and corresponding packet error rates.
Nemavat et al. teach a method wherein the mark-aware transmission rate table records a plurality of modulation coding scheme (MCS) indexes and corresponding packet error rates. (read as a supported MCS based on an estimated RSSI (Paragraph [0082]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the capacity estimator as taught by Nemavat et al. with the wireless node(s) as taught by Ho et al. for the purpose of enhancing frame aggregation by devices in a wireless communication network.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0076251 A1), in view of Nemavat et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0269932 A1), and Nishibayashi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2005/0238016 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, and as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, Ho et al. teach “enable flexible, dynamic, and proactive reporting of low latency parameters or QoS metrics on a per-MPDU basis, not only as part of an initial negotiation between STAs, or between STAs and APs.”(Fig(s).1-4; Paragraph [0028])
Nemavat et al. teach “the capacity estimator 130 estimates transmission opportunities available for the transmitter to transmit wireless communications to the receiver based on the obtained capabilities and the collected information, estimates an achievable transmission rate by the transmitter based on the determined capabilities and the collected information, and estimates the capacity of at least one wireless stream of the wireless link based on the estimated transmission opportunities and the estimated achievable transmission rate.”(Paragraph(s) [0052]) For example, Nemavat et al. teach “the capacity estimator 130 estimates an achievable transmission rate by the transmitter based on the determined capabilities and the collected information by using the rate from one of the previous AMPDUs assuming the rate has not changed more than a threshold.”(Paragraph [0062])
However, Ho et al. and Nemavat et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein for each MPDU:
when the MPDU comprise
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) signaling and data packets,
gaming control and data packets,
multimedia streaming packets,
multimedia conferencing packet or
real-time interactive packets,
the MPDU has the packet mark with a first value; and
when the MPDU comprise file transfer protocol (FTP) packets or a browser control and data packets,
the MPDU has the packet mark with a second value.
Nishibayashi et al. teach a method wherein for each MPDU (Fig.8):
when the MPDU comprise
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) signaling and data packets (read as high priority MPDU (Fig.8)),
gaming control and data packets,
multimedia streaming packets (read as Intermediate priority MPDU),
multimedia conferencing packet or
real-time interactive packets,
the MPDU has the packet mark with a first value (read as window size (Paragraph [0118])); and
when the MPDU comprise file transfer protocol (FTP) packets or a browser control and data packets (read as low priority MPDU (Fig.8; Paragraph [0118])),
the MPDU has the packet mark with a second value. (read as window size (Paragraph [0118]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for assigning priorities to MPDUs as taught by Nishibayashi et al. and the capacity estimator as taught by Nemavat et al. with the wireless node(s) as taught by Ho et al. for the purpose of enhancing frame aggregation by devices in a wireless communication network.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Ahmed et al. (“Super-MAC: Data Duplication and Combining for Reliability Enhancements in Next-Generation Networks”, 2021) teach “the super-MAC attaches a unique sequence number to a group of RLC-PDUs together.”(Abstract; Fig.3, page 54680)
Wentink et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0146700 A1) teach “DEV2 may determine the transmission rate of the received data frames 311 by extracting the MCS information embedded in the PHY header of the PPDU or A-MPDU containing the one or more data frames. The transmission rate of the data frames may be extrapolated (or otherwise derived) from the extracted MCS information.”(Paragraph [0046])
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
January 21, 2026