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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 03/10/2026.
Claims 1-14 and 27-42 are pending in this application, with claims 1,27,39 and 41 being independent.
Claims 15-26 have been canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/10/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 41-42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 41, line 1, “computer-readable medium” should read “computer-readable storage medium”
In claim 41, line 2, “the instructions executable by a processing system to cause” should read “the instructions when executed by a processor cause”
In claim 42, line 1, “computer-readable medium” should read “computer-readable storage medium”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,3-4,8,27,29-30,34,39 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,4-5,7 and 48 of U.S. Patent No. US11903017B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim 1 of Patent No. US11903017B2 incorporates all the limitations of the Claims 1,3-4,8,27,29-30,34,39 and 41 of instant application.
Instant Application 18/407197
Patent No. US11903017B2
Claims 1,27,39,41 A first wireless communication device, comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: 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; transmit, to a root access point (AP) in accordance with an activation of an application associated with second data traffic having the first classification, a data session request indicating traffic pattern information associated with the second data traffic 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, 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; receive, from the root AP, link configuration information in accordance with the data session request, wherein the link configuration information indicates a second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic; and broadcast one or more beacon frames carrying information indicating the second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic.
Claims 1,5,48 A method for wireless communication performed by a wireless communication device, comprising: activating an application associated with a first classification of first data traffic;
receiving a beacon frame carrying information indicating a set of time or frequency resources-associated with second data traffic having the first classification;
transmitting a data session request to a root access point (AP) responsive to activating the application, the data session request indicating traffic pattern information associated with the first data traffic having the first classification and preferred time or frequency resources associated with the first data traffic having the first classification,
wherein the preferred time or frequency resources include one or more preferred channels to carry the first data traffic or one or more preferred times to exchange the first data traffic, or both, and are orthogonal to the set of time or frequency resources associated with the second data traffic, and wherein:
the one or more preferred channels are associated with a channel scan performed by the wireless communication device that indicates that the one or more preferred channels are associated with lower channel utilization levels than other channels associated with higher channel utilization levels; and the one or more preferred times are associated with a target wake time (TWT) schedule;
receiving link configuration information from the root AP responsive to the data session request, the link configuration information indicating a first set of time or frequency resources reserved for the first data traffic; and
establishing a data path with the root AP associated with the first set of time or frequency resources, the data path being reserved for the first data traffic.
Claim 5 broadcasting one or more beacon frames carrying information indicating the first set of time or frequency resources.
Claims 3,29 wherein the first wireless communication device and the root AP are associated with a mesh basic service set (MBSS), and wherein the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: establish, with a wireless repeater in the MBSS, a first communication link that includes the second set of time or frequency resources, wherein the data path is associated with the first communication link and a second communication link, and wherein the second communication link is between the wireless repeater and the root AP and includes a third set of time or frequency resources that are orthogonal to the second set of time or frequency resources.
Claim 2 wherein the wireless communication device and the root AP are associated with a mesh basic service set (MBSS), the establishing of the data path comprising:
establishing, with a wireless repeater in the MBSS, a first communication link that includes the first set of time or frequency resources, the data path being associated with the first communication link and a second communication link,
wherein the second communication link is between the wireless repeater and the root AP and includes a second set of time or frequency resources that are orthogonal to the time or frequency resources, respectively, of the first set.
Claim 4,30 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.
Claim 4 wherein the first set of time or frequency resources includes one or more first target wake time (TWT) service periods, and the second set of time or frequency resources includes one or more second TWT service periods orthogonal to the one or more first TWT service periods.
Claim 8,34 wherein the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: 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.
Claim 7 configuring a number (K) of antenna chains of a wireless radio to operate on the second set of time or frequency resources, the data session request further indicating the K antenna chains.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Patent US11903017B2 issued to Babaei contains every element of Claims 1,3-4,8,27,29-30,34,39 and 41 of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Following limitations of Claim 39:
- means for receiving, 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;
- means for transmitting, to a root access point (AP) in accordance with an activation of an application associated with second data traffic having the first classification, a data session request indicating traffic pattern information associated with the second data traffic 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, 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;
- means for receiving, from the root AP, link configuration information in accordance with the data session request, wherein the link configuration information indicates a second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic;
- means for broadcasting one or more beacon frames carrying information indicating the second set of time or frequency resources reserved for the second data traffic.
Are being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “receiving a beacon frame, transmitting, receiving and broadcasting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 39 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Specification Para[0041], Figure 2.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claims so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 40 is written as dependent to Claim 1 which is improper dependent form.
For the examination purpose, the claim 40 is considered as dependent claim to the claim 39.
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.
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 (Islam Para[0052] A control signal (i.e. beacon frame) is resources indication is received for a low latency 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” 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
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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