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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 13, 17 and 19 is/are objected because of the following informalities (or vagueness): said claims recite abbreviations, R-TWT, TID PPDU, EDCA and RTS, and the abbreviations need to be spelled out.
Claim 4 recite in part “the TWT element”. Said claim depends from claim 1 that doesn’t recite ‘TWT element’. This causes an antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2024/0179744, “Baek”) in view of Ajami et al. (US 2023/0140312, “Ajami”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Baek unless otherwise mentioned.
Baek comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claim:
Regarding claim 1, a method comprising:
announcing R-TWT support from a first wireless station to a second wireless station ([0248] “When an AP announces r-TWT information to non-AP STAs, TID information may be included in a TWT element. For example, in order to support a priority-based conditional operation for a TXOP rule for a r-TWT SP of a non-AP STA (or a non-member STA) transmitting data before a r-TWT SP starts, TID information of data to be transmitted during a r-TWT SP may be provided to a non-member STA.”) in a broadcast PPDU (This will be discussed in view of Ajami.);
negotiating R-TWT schedule membership with the second wireless station ([0242] “A STA may establish membership for at least one r-TWT schedule for an AP. Here, a r-TWT agreement may be established by the same process as a broadcast TWT agreement and a broadcast TWT element”), the negotiating comprising sending a low latency indication and identifying low latency TIDs of a R-TWT schedule ([0245] “A STA (e.g., a low latency STA) which supports a restricted SP (or r-TWT SP) operation of a broadcast TWT may inform an AP that latency sensitive data should be transmitted based on a r-TWT operation.”, and [0247] “latency sensitive data may be data to which a specific traffic identifier (TID) value is allocated. A TID may identify a traffic category (TC), a traffic stream (TS), etc. A TC may correspond to a priority. In other words, a TID value may represent at least a priority of corresponding data.”); and
sending frames in accordance with the R-TWT schedule in the identified low latency TIDs (See aforesaid [0245] and [0247].).
It is noted that while disclosing negotiating TWT schedule membership, Baek does not specifically teach about broadcasting in PPDU. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ajami as follows;
in a broadcast PPDU ([Ajami, 0101] “The AP 1001 schedules r-TWT SP1 based on its received coordinated r-TWT signaling information and transmits or broadcasts r-TWT schedule information indicating the schedule for r-TWT SP1.”, and [Ajami, 0102] “the coordinated r-TWT signaling information may be carried a new frame or packet (such as an MPDU or PPDU) designed for coordinated r-TWT signaling.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Baek by using the features of Ajami in order to effectively support various applications such that “desirable to ensure that WLANs are able to meet the various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of such low-latency applications” [Ajami, 0004].
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein negotiating further comprises adding an indication that the negotiated R-TWT schedule membership applies to a negotiated individual R-TWT ([0195] “A broadcast TWT is a TWT that a non-AP STA (or a TWT scheduling STA) acquires information on a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) and a listen interval, etc. by transmitting or receiving a TWT request/response frame with an AP (or a TWT scheduled STA). Here, a negotiation operation for a TBTT may be performed. Based on it, an AP may define a frame which will include scheduling information of a TWT through a beacon frame. In FIG. 15, STA1 performs a solicited TWT operation and STA2 performs an unsolicited TWT operation. An AP may transmit a DL MU PPDU after confirming an awake status of STAs through a trigger transmitted by an AP. It may be the same as a process of an individual TWT.”).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, wherein the adding the indication comprises adding the indication to a TWT element of a frame ([0196] “Delivery of TWT information may be performed through a TWT information frame and a TWT information element. A TWT information frame is transmitted by a STA to request or deliver information on a TWT agreement”).
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1, wherein the TWT element further carries identifiers of the low latency TIDs being serviced in the sending the frames (See aforesaid [0247]).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1, further comprising announcing that the first wireless station will be in a low power mode outside of the R-TWT schedule ([0230] “A flow type subfield may represent an interaction type between a TWT requesting STA (or a TWT scheduled STA) and a TWT responding STA (or a TWT scheduling AP). When that value is 1, it may mean an announced TWT that a STA transmits a wakeup signal to an AP by transmitting a PS-Poll or automatic power save delivery (APSD) trigger frame before a frame, not a trigger frame, is transmitted from an AP to a STA. When that value is 0, it may mean an unannounced TWT.”).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request to send from a second wireless station, wherein the request to send includes a request to initiate a transmit opportunity; and sending a clear to send to the second wireless station, wherein the clear to send indicates a duration of the transmit opportunity ([0233] “When that value is 1, a TXOP in a TWT SP may be started with a NAV protection mechanism such as a (MU)RTS/CTS or a CTS-to-self frame”)
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1, further comprising announcing a R-TWT schedule including a Target Wake Time, wherein the Target Wake Time is expressed in an element that includes a broadcast TWT ID ([0205] “when a value of a negotiation type subfield is 2, a TWT subfield is about a future broadcast TWT SP start time and a TWT element includes at least one broadcast TWT parameter set. It may correspond to providing a broadcast TWT schedule to a TWT scheduled STA by including a TWT element in a broadcast management frame transmitted by a TWT scheduling AP.”).
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2024/0179744, “Baek”) in view of Ajami et al. (US 2023/0140312, “Ajami”) and further in view of Xia et al. (US 2023/0269788, “Xia”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Baek unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that while disclosing negotiating TWT schedule membership, Baek does not specifically teach about an EDCA parameter different from for other stations. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Xia as follows;
the method of claim 1, further comprising announcing an EDCA parameter set for R-TWT members that is different from an EDCA parameter set for other wireless stations ([Xia, 0197] “Different Applied Groups, such as R-TWT member and non-R-TWT member STAs may have different RTA Adaptive EDCA parameters”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Baek by using the features of Xia in order to achieve higher levels of efficiency for an enhanced EDCA based protocol such that “A new Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) mechanism is described for dynamically adjusting EDCA corresponding to the Access Categories (AC) and the dynamically decreasing value of Real-Time Application (RTA) lifetime” [Xia, 0009].
Claim(s) 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2024/0179744, “Baek”) in view of Ajami et al. (US 2023/0140312, “Ajami”), and further in view of Ajami et al. (US 2023/0087887, “Ajami887”) and Radulescu et al. (US 2018/0249496, “Radulescu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Baek unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that while disclosing negotiating TWT schedule membership, Baek does not specifically teach about TXOP with RTS. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ajami887 as follows;
the method of claim 1, further comprising:
announcing from the first wireless station that a mmWave transmit opportunity begins with a request to send ([Ajami887, 0096 and Fig. 8A] “the AP 802 may require all associated STAs to initiate an RTS/CTS exchange when attempting to acquire a TXOP of any desired length on the shared wireless channel.”. Note that a mmWave TXOP will be discussed in view of Radulescu.);
receiving a request to send from the second wireless station, wherein the request to send includes a request to initiate a transmit opportunity ([Ajami887, 0097 and Fig. 8A] “At time t.sub.2, the non-legacy STA 806 senses that the wireless channel is still idle and proceeds to transmit an RTS frame requesting a TXOP from times t.sub.4 to t.sub.5. For example, the RTS frame includes a MAC header having a duration field set to the desired TXOP duration.”); and
sending a clear to send to the second wireless station, wherein the clear to send indicates a duration of the transmit opportunity ([Ajami887, 0097 and Fig. 8A] “the AP 802 may transmit a CTS frame, at time t.sub.3, granting the requested TXOP. For example, the CTS frame includes a MAC header having a duration field indicating the allocated TXOP duration.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Baek by using the features of Ajami887 in order to effectively support various applications such that “desirable to ensure that WLANs are able to meet the various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of such low-latency applications” [Ajami887, 0003].
It is noted that while disclosing negotiating TWT schedule membership, Baek does not specifically teach about mmWave TXOP. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Radulescu as follows;
mmWave transmit opportunity ([Radulescu, 0053] “the UE 182/eNB 180 may be configured to schedule (198) resources in a mmW communication system, including, e.g., any of cross-TxOP scheduling”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Baek by using the features of Radulescu in order to effectively support various user equipments simultaneously such that “a signal may be transmitted to trigger an UL transmission in a TxOP based on a grant from a previous TxOP” [Radulescu, 0007].
Claim(s) 13-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2024/0179744, “Baek”) in view of Shafin et al. (US 2024/0381265, “Shafin”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Baek unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 13, a method comprising:
announcing TWT support from a first wireless station to a second wireless station ([0248] “When an AP announces r-TWT information to non-AP STAs, TID information may be included in a TWT element. For example, in order to support a priority-based conditional operation for a TXOP rule for a r-TWT SP of a non-AP STA (or a non-member STA) transmitting data before a r-TWT SP starts, TID information of data to be transmitted during a r-TWT SP may be provided to a non-member STA.”) in an individual PPDU (This will be discussed in view of Shafin.);
negotiating TWT schedule membership with the second wireless station ([0242] “A STA may establish membership for at least one r-TWT schedule for an AP. Here, a r-TWT agreement may be established by the same process as a broadcast TWT agreement and a broadcast TWT element”), the negotiating comprising sending a low latency indication and identifying low latency TIDs of the TWT schedule ([0245] “A STA (e.g., a low latency STA) which supports a restricted SP (or r-TWT SP) operation of a broadcast TWT may inform an AP that latency sensitive data should be transmitted based on a r-TWT operation.”, and [0247] “latency sensitive data may be data to which a specific traffic identifier (TID) value is allocated. A TID may identify a traffic category (TC), a traffic stream (TS), etc. A TC may correspond to a priority. In other words, a TID value may represent at least a priority of corresponding data.”); and
sending frames in accordance with the TWT schedule in the identified low latency TIDs (See aforesaid [0245] and [0247].).
It is noted that while disclosing negotiating TWT schedule membership, Baek does not specifically teach about broadcasting in PPDU. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Shafin as follows;
in an individual PPDU ([Shafin, 0194] “A restricted TWT schedule is established on Link 1, with corresponding restricted TWT SP 3002. AP2 transmits a DL PPDU 3004 for STA2 on Link 2 before the restricted TWT SP starts on Link 1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Baek by using the features of Shafin in order to effectively support latency sensitive applications such that “it gives more channel access opportunity for the restricted TWT member scheduled STAs” [Shafin, 0009].
Regarding claim 14, the method of claim 13, wherein negotiating further comprises adding an indication that the negotiated TWT schedule membership applies to a negotiated individual TWT ([0195] “A broadcast TWT is a TWT that a non-AP STA (or a TWT scheduling STA) acquires information on a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) and a listen interval, etc. by transmitting or receiving a TWT request/response frame with an AP (or a TWT scheduled STA). Here, a negotiation operation for a TBTT may be performed. Based on it, an AP may define a frame which will include scheduling information of a TWT through a beacon frame. In FIG. 15, STA1 performs a solicited TWT operation and STA2 performs an unsolicited TWT operation. An AP may transmit a DL MU PPDU after confirming an awake status of STAs through a trigger transmitted by an AP. It may be the same as a process of an individual TWT.”).
Regarding claim 15, the method of claim 14, wherein the adding the indication comprises adding the indication to a TWT element of a frame ([0196] “Delivery of TWT information may be performed through a TWT information frame and a TWT information element. A TWT information frame is transmitted by a STA to request or deliver information on a TWT agreement”).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 15, wherein the TWT element further carries identifiers of the low latency TIDs being serviced in the sending the frames (See aforesaid [0247]).
Claim(s) 17 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. (US 2023/0087887, “Ajami887”) in view of Radulescu et al. (US 2018/0249496, “Radulescu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ajami887 unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 17, a method comprising:
announcing from a first wireless station that a mmWave transmit opportunity begins with a request to send ([0096 and Fig. 8A] “the AP 802 may require all associated STAs to initiate an RTS/CTS exchange when attempting to acquire a TXOP of any desired length on the shared wireless channel.”. Note that a mmWave TXOP will be discussed in view of Radulescu.);
receiving a request to send from a second wireless station, wherein the request to send includes a request to initiate a transmit opportunity ([0097 and Fig. 8A] “At time t.sub.2, the non-legacy STA 806 senses that the wireless channel is still idle and proceeds to transmit an RTS frame requesting a TXOP from times t.sub.4 to t.sub.5. For example, the RTS frame includes a MAC header having a duration field set to the desired TXOP duration.”); and
sending a clear to send to the second wireless station, wherein the clear to send indicates a duration of the transmit opportunity ([0097 and Fig. 8A] “the AP 802 may transmit a CTS frame, at time t.sub.3, granting the requested TXOP. For example, the CTS frame includes a MAC header having a duration field indicating the allocated TXOP duration.”).
It is noted that while disclosing negotiating TWT schedule membership, Baek does not specifically teach about mmWave TXOP. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Radulescu as follows;
mmWave transmit opportunity ([Radulescu, 0053] “the UE 182/eNB 180 may be configured to schedule (198) resources in a mmW communication system, including, e.g., any of cross-TxOP scheduling”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Baek by using the features of Radulescu in order to effectively support various user equipments simultaneously such that “a signal may be transmitted to trigger an UL transmission in a TxOP based on a grant from a previous TxOP” [Radulescu, 0007].
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 17, further comprising including a duration element in the RTS to define a duration of the transmit opportunity (See aforesaid [0097].).
Claim(s) 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. (US 2023/0087887, “Ajami887”) in view of Radulescu et al. (US 2018/0249496, “Radulescu”) and further in view of Sehgal et al. (US 2024/0027572, “Sehgal”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ajami887 unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that while disclosing negotiating TWT schedule membership, Baek does not specifically teach about ending TXOP. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Sehgal as follows;
the method of claim 17, further comprising sending a contention free-end message to the second wireless station to end the transmit opportunity ([Sehgal, 0099] “The end of the TXOP is usually indicated by the transmission of an acknowledgement (ACK), or the end can be triggered by using a Contention Free (CF)-end packet.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Baek by using the features of Sehgal in order to achieve low cost synchronization such that “The method also includes generating a data unit of a Wi-Fi communications protocol based on the radar pulse configuration information” [Sehgal, 0005].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims contain the following underlined features which, when combined with other features of the claim, prior art of record failed to anticipate or render obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application was filed:
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1, further comprising announcing that a backoff and retry request to send is disabled for the second wireless station.
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 6, further comprising the first wireless station disables receiving requests using an EDCA parameter set from a second wireless station outside of the R-TWT schedule.
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1, wherein negotiating R-TWT schedule membership is performed without the use of a trigger-based TB PPDU and wherein sending frames is performed without a TB PPDU.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411