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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention-II (claims 5-20) in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. The non-elected invention-I (claims 1-4) are canceled.
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) 5 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku et al. (US 2022/0264592, “Ku”) in view of Yucek et al. (US 2013/0329702, “Yucek”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ku unless otherwise mentioned.
Ku comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 5, a first device comprising:
one or more processors ([0065] “The wireless device 1200 includes a processor 1205 for running software applications”) configured to:
monitor wireless transmit (Tx) traffic from a second device ([0050 and Fig. 3] “STA2 may experience desense when receiving data from wireless AP 305 if STA1 begins transmitting to AP 305.”);
generate a first frame including control information ([0051 and Fig. 3] “if the RSSI received from STA 1 is larger than the RSSI threshold, STA2 reports information associated with STA1 (“transmission information”) to AP 305. The information reported by STA2 may include the interference source (e.g., STA ID, MAC address, etc.), the band info (e.g., operating frequency), the received RSSI, etc.”, and [0061] “Indirect transmission information may include the receiving quality (e.g. information indicated in or derived from BA) and traffic patterns (e.g. indication of overlapping transmission and reception).”) to control wireless receive (Rx) traffic to the first device to avoid collision between the wireless Tx traffic and the wireless Rx traffic ([0051] “Because STA1 and STA2 are associated with AP 305 and the received RSSI is above the threshold, AP 305 advantageously groups STA1 and STA2 to coordinate wireless operations and advantageously prevent interference between the devices.”),
wherein each of the first device and the second device is not an access point (See Fig. 3 for STA1 (310) and STA2 (315).), the control information including at least one of a maximum Rx frame duration or a minimum Rx inter- frame gap (This will be discussed in view of Yucek.); and
wirelessly transmit, via a transceiver, the generated first frame to an access point in a wireless local area network (WLAN) (See aforesaid [0051] “The information reported by STA2”).
It is noted that while disclosing measuring interference between devices, Ku does not specifically teach about either a maximum RX frame duration or a minimum RX inter-frame gap. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Yucek as follows;
the control information including at least one of a maximum Rx frame duration (This alternative is not examined.) or a minimum Rx inter- frame gap ([Yucek, 0006] “the selected inter-frame spacing values may be the minimum required to achieve successful operation for a carrier sense multiple access (CSMA)”, and [Yucek, 0051] “the IEEE 802.11ah standard may specify one or more inter-frame spacing parameters”, [Yucek, 0054] “the transmitter station 106 may transmit the packet 130 via the network 140”, and [Yucek, 0033] “Inter-frame spacing (e.g., a spacing value between two frames) parameters may include a clear channel assessment (CCA) time, a CCA mid time, an air propagation time, a slot time, and a short inter-frame space (SIFS) period”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ku by using the features of Yucek in order to improve coverage range of wireless communication systems such that “for transmissions (e.g., transmissions that comply with the IEEE 802.11ah standard) to enable a station (e.g., a transmitter or a transmit station) to transmit a protocol data unit (PPDU). The one or more parameters or constraints may be associated with or include one or more inter-frame spacing (timing) parameters.” [Yucek, 0006].
Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim corresponding to the method claim 5, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku et al. (US 2022/0264592, “Ku”) in view of Yucek et al. (US 2013/0329702, “Yucek”) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0081291, “Zhang”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ku unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, it is noted that while disclosing measuring interference between devices, Ku does not specifically teach about a control ID to be duration information. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Zhang as follows;
the first device according to claim 5 and the method according to claim 13, respectively, wherein:
the first frame includes a control identifier field, and in generating the first frame, the one or more processors are configured to set the control identifier field to a value indicating a frame duration control frame ([Zhang, 0140] “the first indication information is valid within uplink and downlink durations indicated by the first control information; or, a field in the second control information indicates a valid time length, an indicated content being an index value of one of candidate valid time lengths”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ku by using the features of Zhang in order to increase efficiency of resource usages such that “transmitting first indication information used for indicating one or more frequency-domain bandwidth resources by the network device to the terminal equipment” [Zhang, 0012].
Claim(s) 7 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku et al. (US 2022/0264592, “Ku”) in view of Yucek et al. (US 2013/0329702, “Yucek”) and Zhang et al. (US 2025/0081291, “Zhang”), and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2024/0421943, “Huang”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ku unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, it is noted that while disclosing measuring interference between devices, Ku does not specifically teach about HE variant HT. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Huang as follows;
the first device according to claim 6 and the method according to claim 14, respectively, wherein the control identifier field is included in an aggregate control (A-control) subfield of a High Efficiency (HE) variant High Throughput (HT) control field of the first frame ([Huang, 0114] “The HE variant HT Control field 806 is a variant of the HT Control subfield 804 and comprises a VHT (Very High Throughput) field, a HE field”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ku by using the features of Huang in order to provide better link adaptation and higher throughput such that “receives a null data packet (NDP) or a medium access control (MAC) frame carrying hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information for the one or more code blocks.” [Huang, 0007].
Claim(s) 8 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku et al. (US 2022/0264592, “Ku”) in view of Yucek et al. (US 2013/0329702, “Yucek”) and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2017/0118631, “Zou”) and Sekiya et al. (US 2019/0296886, “Sekiya”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ku unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, it is noted that while disclosing measuring interference between devices, Ku does not specifically teach about a maximum SIFS duration and frame’s duration. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Zou and Sekiya, respectively, as follows;
the first device according to claim 5 and the method according to claim 13, respectively, wherein:
the maximum Rx frame duration includes a maximum Physical Layer Convergence Protocol (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU) and a maximum short interframe space (SIFS) burst duration ([Zou, 0073] “one SIFS burst may support a maximum of 4 PPDUs, with each PPDU having a duration of 2 ms, the maximum SIFS burst duration may be set to 8 ms (4 PPDU*2 ms).”), and
the minimum Rx inter-frame gap is a minimum gap between two frames each having a frame duration smaller than or equal to the maximum Rx frame duration ([Sekiya, 0157] “To prevent such risks, in one embodiment, the maximum duration of the data frame (second frame) is set to a value shorter than the maximum defined by relation (9).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ku by using the features of Zou in order to achieve higher throughput and greater reliability such that “use the fetched descriptive information to obtain the set of packets; one or more firmware queues configured to store the fetched descriptive information” [Zou, 0006], and by using the features of Sekiya in order to improve efficiency and communication speed such that “transmit a first frame to a first terminal, and transmit a second frame to a second terminal when a first period elapsed after transmission of the first frame” [Sekiya, 0020]..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-12 and 17-20 are 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.
Claim 9 contains 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:
9. The first device according to claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
monitor second wireless receive (Rx) traffic to the second device;
generate second control information to control second wireless Tx traffic from the first device to avoid collision between the second wireless Tx traffic and the second wireless Rx traffic, the second control information including at least one of a maximum Tx frame duration or a minimum Tx inter-frame gap; and
include the second control information in the first frame.
Claim 17 contains similar features as recited in claim 9, and thus is allowed for the same reason as stated above.
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 depend from claims 9 and 17, respectively, and thus are allowed for the same reason stated above for claim 9.
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