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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,27,39 and 41-42 have been amended. No claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1-14 and 27-42 are pending in this application, with claims 1,27,39 and 41 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Interpretation 112(f) have been considered. The further information provided by the applicant has been added. The applicant has provided more supporting evidence that the corresponding structure for claim 39 is described in the specification in the following sections including, but not limited to, Figures 2, & 11 and paragraphs [0041-48,0142-144])
Applicant's arguments with respect to nonstatutory double patenting rejection have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/22/2026 on pages 15-17 of applicant's remark regarding Claims 1,27,39,41, the applicant argues that Tao does not teach beacon frame application or classification. The applicant further argues that Islam does not indicate reserved resources and presence of low latency traffic of Islam cannot be combined with the cited teachings of Honkasalo. The applicant further argues that the combination of Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not teach the same classification for first and second traffic.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Newberg discloses sending a request for resources regarding a traffic for certain classification from the root AP and receiving configuration from the root AP for the requested resources (Newberg Para[0029-35]). The examiner depends on Honkasalo for teachings of orhthogonality of reserved and requested resources (Honkasalo Para[0136-137,0162]). Islam teaches about information received for reserved resources by another device for low latency traffic (Islam Para[0052]). The examiner cites Tao’s teaching for how the device receives the information for reserved resources (Tao Para[0064-65]). The claimed invention is interpreted as having a knowledge of resources reserved by one device to avoid confit with resource needed for sending traffic by a second device using orthogonality between the reserved and requested resources. The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on how first classification is important and how devices are using the classification information. Just mentioning a classification for a requested and reserved resources has no clear boundary. Thus, the combination of Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam clearly meets the claimed invention and the concept of it. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-14 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
The dependent claims 28-38 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 17.
The dependent claim 40 is rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 39.
The dependent claim 42 is rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 41.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 31 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.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2,27-28,39-40 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg et al. (US 2002/0093983 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Newberg”) in view of Honkasalo et al. (US 2011/0228742 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Honkasalo”) and further in view of TAO et al. (US 2020/0305061 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Tao”) further in view of Islam et al. (US 2019/0052432 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Islam”).
Regarding Claims 1,27,39 and 41, Newberg discloses a first wireless communication device and a method, to: transmit (Newberg Fig.1 Ref:202 Para[0014] The wireless system has base site (i.e. root AP) and wireless terminals (i.e. device)), to a root access point (AP) (Newberg Fig.5 Ref:502 Para[0029-35] The application requirements are sent to the base site (i.e. root AP) by the terminal) in accordance with an activation of an application associated with second data traffic having the first classification (Newberg Fig.5 Ref:502,504 Para[0029-35] The multimedia call (i.e. application) is initiated on the computer connected to the terminal and requirements are generated), a data session request indicating traffic pattern information associated with the second data traffic (Newberg Fig.5 Ref:502 Para[0030] The packet size (i.e. traffic pattern)) and indicating one or both of one or more requested wireless channels to carry the second data traffic or one or more requested times to exchange the second data traffic (Newberg Fig.5 Ref:502 Para[0029-35] The codec type and total transmit and receive bit rates are part of the application requirements and used for determining the resources); receive, from the root AP, link configuration information in accordance with the data session request (Newberg Fig.5 Ref:510 Para[0029-35] The message is sent to the wireless terminal after receiving the request from the terminal), wherein the link configuration information indicates a second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic (Newberg Fig.5 Ref:512 Para[0029-35] The application setup is completed using reserved resources (i.e. second set) indicated by the network).
Newberg does not explicitly disclose wherein one or both of the one or more requested wireless channels or the one or more requested times are orthogonal to the first set of time or frequency resources associated with the first data traffic.
However, Honkasalo from the same field of invention discloses wherein one or both of the one or more requested wireless channels (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136-137,0162] The first link on f1 frequency sub-carrier resources) or the one or more requested times (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136-137,0162] The first link on f1 frequency sub-carrier resources) are orthogonal (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136-137,0162] The f1 and f2 sub-carrier resources are orthogonal to each other) to the first set of time or frequency resources associated with the first data traffic (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136-137,0162] The first link on f2 frequency sub-carrier resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg to have the feature of “wherein one or both of the one or more requested wireless channels or the one or more requested times are orthogonal to the first set of time or frequency resources associated with the first data traffic” as taught by Honkasalo. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide efficient bandwidth usage for wireless mesh network having backhaul wireless network (Honkasalo Para[0030]).
Newberg in view of Honkasalo does not explicitly disclose broadcast one or more beacon frames carrying information indicating the second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic.
However, Tao from the same field of invention discloses broadcast one or more beacon frames carrying information indicating the second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic (Tao Para[0064-65] The beacon message is broadcasted to indicate RRM message (i.e. resources) time and channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg and Honkasalo to have the feature of “broadcast one or more beacon frames carrying information indicating the second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic” as taught by Tao. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide low-cost and low-complexity routing method (Tao Para[0006]).
Newberg in view of Honkasalo and Tao does not explicitly disclose receive, from a second wireless communication device, a beacon frame carrying information indicating a first set of time or frequency resources reserved for first data traffic having a first classification, wherein the first classification corresponds to one or more end-to-end latency requirements, one or more throughput requirements, or both.
However, Islam from the same field of invention discloses receive, from a second wireless communication device, a beacon frame carrying information indicating a first set of time or frequency resources reserved for first data traffic having a first classification, wherein the first classification corresponds to one or more end-to-end latency requirements, one or more throughput requirements, or both (Islam Para[0052] A control signal (i.e. beacon frame) is resources indication is received for a low latency (i.e. first classification) traffic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo and Tao to have the feature of “receive, from a second wireless communication device, a beacon frame carrying information indicating a first set of time or frequency resources reserved for first data traffic having a first classification, wherein the first classification corresponds to end-to-end latency requirements” as taught by Islam. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable reliable and low latency communication (Islam Para[0002]).
Specifically for claims 1 and 41, Newberg discloses the wireless communication device that includes a processor (Newberg Fig.2 a processor) and a memory (Newberg Fig.2 A memory).
Regarding claims 2,28,40 and 42, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Honkasalo further discloses wherein a data path between the first wireless communication device and the root AP is associated with the second set of time or frequency resources, and wherein the data path is reserved for the second data traffic (Honkasalo Fig.12 Para[0136] A separate path for f1 and f2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “wherein a data path between the first wireless communication device and the root AP is associated with the second set of time or frequency resources, and wherein the data path is reserved for the second data traffic” as taught by Honkasalo. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide efficient bandwidth usage for wireless mesh network having backhaul wireless network (Honkasalo Para[0030]).
Regarding claims 3 and 29, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Honkasalo further discloses wherein the first wireless communication device and the root AP are associated with a mesh basic service set (MBSS) (Honkasalo Fig.1 Para[0056] The mesh network), establish, with a wireless repeater in the MBSS (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136] The node 2 (i.e. repeater)), a first communication link that includes the second set of time or frequency resources (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136-137,0162] The first link on f1 frequency sub-carrier resources), the data path being associated with the first communication link and a second communication link (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136-137,0162] The first link on f2 frequency sub-carrier resources), the second communication link is between the wireless repeater and the root AP (Honkasalo Fig. Para[0056,0087] The root node), that includes a third set of time or frequency resources that are orthogonal to the second set of time or frequency resources (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136-137,0162] The f1 and f2 sub-carrier resources are orthogonal to each other).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “wherein the first wireless communication device and the root AP are associated with a mesh basic service set (MBSS), establish, with a wireless repeater in the MBSS, a first communication link that includes the second set of time or frequency resources, the data path being associated with the first communication link and a second communication link, the second communication link is between the wireless repeater and the root AP, that includes a third set of time or frequency resources that are orthogonal to the second set of time or frequency resources” as taught by Honkasalo. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide efficient bandwidth usage for wireless mesh network having backhaul wireless network (Honkasalo Para[0030]).
Regarding claims 6 and 32, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Honkasalo further discloses wherein the second set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first wireless channels, and the third set of time or frequency resources includes one or more second wireless channels orthogonal to the one or more first wireless channels in accordance with the second data traffic having the first classification (Honkasalo Fig. 12,17 Para[0136-137,0162] The f1 and f2 resources are orthogonal to each other).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “wherein the second set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first wireless channels, and the third set of time or frequency resources includes one or more second wireless channels orthogonal to the one or more first wireless channels in accordance with the second data traffic having the first classification” as taught by Honkasalo. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide efficient bandwidth usage for wireless mesh network having backhaul wireless network (Honkasalo Para[0030]).
Claims 4,6,30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao, Islam and further in view of CARIOU et al. (EP 3820225 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cariou”).
Regarding claims 4 and 30, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose wherein the second set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first target wake time (TWT} service periods, and the third set of time or frequency resources includes one or more second TWT service periods orthogonal to the one or more first TWT service periods in accordance with the second data traffic having the first classification.
However, Cariou from the same field of invention discloses wherein the second set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first target wake time (TWT} service periods, and the third set of time or frequency resources includes one or more second TWT service periods orthogonal to the one or more first TWT service periods in accordance with the second data traffic having the first classification (Cariou Para[0022-23] The service periods for TWT for each AP is shared using OFDMA technique to avoid interference. The two APs use two different set of resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam and to have the feature of “wherein the second set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first target wake time (TWT} service periods, and the third set of time or frequency resources includes one or more second TWT service periods orthogonal to the one or more first TWT service periods in accordance with the second data traffic having the first classification” as taught by Cariou. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a technique for latency reduction in WLANs (Cariou Para[0003]).
Claims 7 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam and further in view of Onno et al. (WO 2021/122263 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Onno”).
Regarding claims 7 and 33, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg further disclose wherein the link configuration information indicates that a third set of time or frequency resources are reserved for the second data traffic between the first wireless communication device and a client device, and wherein the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: establish, with the client device, a communication link that includes the third set of time or frequency resources, wherein the data path is associated with at least the communication link (Newberg Fig.5 Ref:510 Para[0029-35] The call is established with any other UEs (i.e. client)). Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose wherein the third set of time or frequency resources are orthogonal to the second set of time or frequency resources.
However, Onno from the same field of invention discloses wherein the third set of time or frequency resources are orthogonal to the second set of time or frequency resources (Onno Para[0059,0104] The different WTRUs connect to gNB with varying OFDM symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “wherein the third set of time or frequency resources are orthogonal to the second set of time or frequency resources” as taught by Onno. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable AP selection based on wireless link performance (Onno Para[0092]).
Claims 8-9 and 34-35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam and further in view of CHAKRABORTY et al. (US 2018/0070363 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Chakraborty”).
Regarding claims 8 and 34, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose transmit, to the root AP, radio configuration information that indicates a number of antenna chains of a wireless radio of the first wireless communication device provisioned to serve the second data traffic, wherein the number of antenna chains are provisioned in response to the activation of the application associated with the second data traffic having the first classification.
However, Chakraborty from the same field of invention discloses transmit, to the root AP, radio configuration information that indicates a number of antenna chains of a wireless radio of the first wireless communication device provisioned to serve the second data traffic, wherein the number of antenna chains are provisioned in response to the activation of the application associated with the second data traffic having the first classification (Chakraborty Para[0090,161] The resource request from the UE contains number of antenna elements of the UE for local operation (i.e. application)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “transmit, to the root AP, radio configuration information that indicates a number of antenna chains of a wireless radio of the first wireless communication device provisioned to serve the second data traffic, wherein the number of antenna chains are provisioned in response to the activation of the application associated with the second data traffic having the first classification” as taught by Chakraborty. The suggestion/motivation would have been to coordinate between UE and base station to minimize interference (Chakraborty Para[0006]).
Regarding claims 9 and 35, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless radio is dedicated to exchanging the second data traffic in accordance with the second data traffic having the first classification.
However, Chakraborty from the same field of invention discloses wherein the wireless radio is dedicated to exchanging the second data traffic in accordance with the second data traffic having the first classification (Chakraborty Para[0090,161] The UE performs transmission blockage detection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “wherein the wireless radio is dedicated to exchanging the second data traffic in accordance with the second data traffic having the first classification” as taught by Chakraborty. The suggestion/motivation would have been to coordinate between UE and base station to minimize interference (Chakraborty Para[0006]).
Claims 10 and 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam and further in view of Hu (US 2021/0289564 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Hu”).
Regarding claims 10 and 36, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose receive enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) configuration information indicating a first set of EDCA parameters associated with the second data traffic, wherein the first set of EDCA parameters are further associated with the second data traffic having the first classification.
However, Hu from the same field of invention discloses receive enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) configuration information indicating a first set of EDCA parameters associated with the second data traffic, wherein the first set of EDCA parameters are further associated with the second data traffic having the first classification (Hu Para[0026] The EDCA parameters received for channel access for latency sensitive application traffic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “receive enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) configuration information indicating a first set of EDCA parameters associated with the second data traffic, wherein the first set of EDCA parameters are further associated with the second data traffic having the first classification” as taught by Hu. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide prioritized access to latency sensitive to stations (Hu Para[0002]).
Claims 11 and 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 2018/0098330 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Nguyen”).
Regarding claims 11 and 37, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose receive a beacon frame carrying first timing synchronization function (TSF) information of the root AP; and synchronize a first TSF timer of the first wireless communication device to a second TSF timer of the root AP in accordance with the TSF information, wherein the second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic are associated with synchronization of TSF timers between the first wireless communication device and the root AP.
However, Nguyen from the same field of invention discloses receive a beacon frame carrying first timing synchronization function (TSF) information of the root AP; and synchronize a first TSF timer of the first wireless communication device to a second TSF timer of the root AP in accordance with the TSF information, wherein the second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic are associated with synchronization of TSF timers between the first wireless communication device and the root AP (Nguyen Para[0136] A beacon broadcast is sued for TSF and client-AP synchronization is performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “receive a beacon frame carrying first timing synchronization function (TSF) information of the root AP; and synchronize a first TSF timer of the first wireless communication device to a second TSF timer of the root AP in accordance with the TSF information, wherein the second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic are associated with synchronization of TSF timers between the first wireless communication device and the root AP” as taught by Nguyen. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve system throughput (Nguyen Para[0003]).
Claims 12 and 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam and further in view of ZHANG et al. (CN 112543509 A, hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 12 and 38, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose activate the application associated with the second data traffic having the first classification, wherein transmission of the data session request is in response to the activation of the application.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses activate the application associated with the second data traffic having the first classification, wherein transmission of the data session request is in response to the activation of the application (Zhang Para[n0022] The UE sends SR request based on an event (i.e. application)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “activate the application associated with the second data traffic having the first classification, wherein transmission of the data session request is in response to the activation of the application” as taught by Zhang. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve uplink latency (Zhang Para[0001]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam and further in view of CARIOU et al. (US 2018/0176921 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Cariou-6921”).
Regarding claim 13, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first wireless channels or one or more first target wake time (TWT) service periods, and wherein the one or more requested wireless channels are orthogonal to the one or more first wireless channels or the one or more requested times are orthogonal to the one or more first TWT service periods in accordance with the first data traffic and the second data traffic having the first classification.
However, Cariou-6921 from the same field of invention discloses wherein the first set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first wireless channels or one or more first target wake time (TWT) service periods, and wherein the one or more requested wireless channels are orthogonal to the one or more first wireless channels or the one or more requested times are orthogonal to the one or more first TWT service periods in accordance with the first data traffic and the second data traffic having the first classification (Cariou Para[0047-48] The resources for different STAs are with orthogonal service periods)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “wherein the first set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first wireless channels or one or more first target wake time (TWT) service periods, and wherein the one or more requested wireless channels are orthogonal to the one or more first wireless channels or the one or more requested times are orthogonal to the one or more first TWT service periods in accordance with the first data traffic and the second data traffic having the first classification” as taught by Cariou-6921. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce interference (Cariou-6921 Para[0001]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0225323 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 14, Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam discloses the method for wireless communication performed by the first wireless communication device as per Claim 1. Newberg in view of Honkasalo, Tao and Islam does not explicitly disclose wherein the data session request indicates the traffic pattern information, the one or more requested wireless channels, a target wake time (TWT) schedule associated with the one or more requested times, traffic classification information, and a requested channel access category.
However, Wang from the same field of invention discloses wherein the data session request indicates the traffic pattern information, the one or more requested wireless channels, a target wake time (TWT) schedule associated with the one or more requested times, traffic classification information, and a requested channel access category (Wang Para[0005] The STA sends access category, access type, delay bound and AIDs (i.e. schedule)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Newberg, Honkasalo, Tao and Islam to have the feature of “wherein the data session request indicates the traffic pattern information, the one or more requested wireless channels, a target wake time (TWT) schedule associated with the one or more requested times, traffic classification information, and a requested channel access category” as taught by Wang. The suggestion/motivation would have been for efficient uplink resource request for low latency applications (Wang Para[0002]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights