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
Applicants’ arguments filed on 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 15 July 2026, claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 20 have been amended; claims 21-30 have been added.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 16-30 are now pending.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 16-30 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 15, 2026, have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yang and Hong do not teach or suggest using mapping information that provides a one-to-one mapping of scheduling priority levels to access class queues, as recited in claim 1. The rejection acknowledges that Yang does not expressly disclose that mapping and relies on Hong for the corresponding priority-based queues.
Applicant quotes Hong ¶330, concerning the priority of a retransmitted packet. The rejection, however, cites Hong ¶337 for the disputed queue teaching. Hong ¶337 teaches that a data frame with high priority uses a high-priority queuing queue and EDCA parameter, while a data frame with low priority uses a low-priority queuing queue and EDCA parameter. Thus, Hong teaches corresponding queues for different priority levels. As explained in the rejection, it would have been obvious to apply this priority-based queue arrangement to Yang’s LBT system to organize packets by priority and provide differentiated scheduling and channel access. Applicant’s discussion of ¶330 does not address that teaching or the stated reason for combining the references.
Applicant presents no separate argument for independent claims 11 and 20 or their dependent claims. The arguments concerning those claims are unpersuasive for the same reasons, insofar as they rely on the disputed priority-to-queue mapping.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yang in view of Hong is maintained. Newly presented claims 21–30 require separate examination; Applicant’s general assertion that they are allowable by dependency does not, by itself, resolve their patentability.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–4, 6-8, 11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 2019/0014596) in view of Hong et al. (US Pub. 2025/0294336).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses A method comprising: Yang discloses an LAA device configured to perform transmission (¶0220). Yang further discloses at a first wireless station implementing a listen before talk function to communicate over a wireless channel to a second wireless station: by describing an LAA device executing a listen-before-talk (LBT) mechanism to contend for access to an unlicensed carrier prior to transmission (¶0220), which corresponds to a wireless station communicating over a wireless channel using LBT. Yang further discloses receiving multiple data packets destined for delivery over the wireless channel to the second wireless station, each of the multiple data packets assigned one of multiple scheduling priority levels; and handling data associated with a plurality of different priority classes, including highest and lowest priority classes (¶0220). Yang further discloses using mapping information to schedule the multiple data packets for transmission over the wireless channel, by configuring LBT parameters corresponding to different priority classes and performing channel access based on those priority classes (¶0220), which corresponds to using priority-based information to control scheduling and transmission behavior. Yang does not specifically disclose the mapping information providing a one-to-one mapping of scheduling priority levels to access class queues from which the multiple data packets are scheduled for transmission from the first wireless station to the second wireless station. Hong discloses distinguishing services with different priorities and assigning them to corresponding queuing queues and access parameters, such that higher-priority services use higher-priority queues and lower-priority services use lower-priority queues (¶0337), thereby teaching mapping priority levels to respective access class queues in a wireless context. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang to include the priority-based queue mapping of Hong in order to organize packets according to priority and enable differentiated scheduling and channel access behavior in the LBT-based wireless system, thereby improving efficiency and quality of service for wireless transmissions.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yang and Hong teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons stated above. Claim 2 further recites “depending on the multiple scheduling priority levels assigned to the access class queues, transmitting the multiple data packets from the first wireless station over the wireless channel to the second wireless station.” Yang teaches executing channel access and transmitting data using LBT behavior corresponding to different priority classes (¶220). Hong teaches using corresponding priority-based queues and EDCA parameters for data frames of different priorities (¶337). It would have been obvious to transmit packets from Hong’s respective queues using Yang’s priority-dependent channel access behavior to provide differentiated transmission according to the multiple scheduling priority levels.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches claim 2 as set forth above. Claim 3 further specifies a first access class queue and recites “mapping an identity of the first access class queue to a first clear channel assessment time window assigned to the first access class queue.” Yang teaches selecting LBT parameters, including CCA durations, according to priority class; Hong teaches a queue corresponding to a priority class. Applying Yang’s CCA duration to Hong’s queue through their corresponding priority class would have been obvious so that packets selected from that queue undergo the channel access procedure assigned to their priority. Yang further teaches transmitting after successful LBT channel access. Accordingly, retrieving a packet from the first queue and transmitting it after the channel is detected as unused for the specified CCA duration would have been obvious in the combined system. Yang’s description of priority-dependent CCA durations provides more specific support here than the original action’s citation to ¶220 alone.
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses The method as in claim 1 further comprising: implementing a first processing layer in a multi-layer protocol stack to process each of the multiple data packets via the mapping information, the first processing layer being implemented between a MAC (Media Access Control) processing layer and an application processing layer in the multi-layer protocol stack to select in which of the access class queues to store each of the multiple data packets. Yang discloses processing packets based on priority classes in a wireless communication system (¶0220). It is well known in the art to implement such classification and mapping within protocol stack layers, including between MAC and higher layers, making the limitation obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Yang does not disclose The method as in claim 1, wherein the mapping information providing the one-to-one mapping of scheduling priority levels to access class queues includes mapping of: a first per hop behavior value to a first access class queue of the access class queues; and a second per hop behavior value to a second access class queue of the access class queues. Hong discloses mapping priority indicators corresponding to QoS levels to queues and access mechanisms (¶0337), which correspond to known per-hop behavior mappings. It would have been obvious to use such per-hop behavior values to map packets to corresponding access class queues.
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses The method as in claim 1, wherein using the mapping information to schedule the multiple data packets for transmission over the wireless channel includes: obtaining a first priority level value from a first data packet of the multiple data packets, the first priority level value being a layer 3 bit marking of the first data packet; in response to detecting the first priority level value in the first data packet, storing the first data packet in a first access class queue assigned to the first priority level value; obtaining a second priority level value from a second data packet of the multiple data packets, the second priority level value being a layer 3 bit marking of the second data packet; and in response to detecting the second priority level value in the second data packet, storing the second data packet in a second access class queue assigned to the second priority level value. Yang discloses obtaining priority class information associated with data and using such priority to control transmission behavior (¶0220). However, Yang does not disclose storing packets in access class queues based on detected priority values. Hong discloses assigning data of different priorities to corresponding queuing queues (¶0337). It would have been obvious to store packets in access class queues based on detected priority values in order to organize data for prioritized transmission.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches claim 6 for the reasons previously stated. Claim 7 further recites “in accordance with the scheduling priority levels assigned to the access class queues, transmitting the first data packet and the second data packet from the first wireless station over the wireless channel to the second wireless station.” Yang teaches priority-dependent LBT channel access (¶220), and Hong teaches corresponding queues and EDCA parameters for frames of different priorities (¶337). Transmitting the first and second packets according to the priority levels assigned to their respective queues would have been obvious to provide the differentiated channel access taught by the references.
Regarding claim 8, Yang does not disclose The method as in claim 6, wherein the layer 3 bit marking of the first data packet is a first DSCP (Differentiated Service Code Point) marking of the first data packet; and wherein the layer 3 bit marking of the second data packet is a second DSCP marking of the second data packet. Hong discloses priority indicators corresponding to QoS levels used to differentiate services (¶0337), which correspond to DSCP-based markings. It would have been obvious to use DSCP markings as the layer 3 bit markings for priority classification.
Regarding claim 9, Yang does not disclose The method as in claim 1, wherein using the mapping information to schedule the multiple data packets includes: storing a first data packet of the multiple data packets in a first sub-queue of the first access class queue of the access class queues in response to detecting a DSCP marking of the first data packet, the DSCP marking of the first data packet having a first value; and storing a second data packet of the multiple data packets in a second sub-queue of the first access class queue of the access class queues in response to detecting a DSCP marking of the second data packet, the DSCP marking of the second data packet having a second value, wherein the first value is different from the second value. Hong discloses assigning packets to queues based on priority levels (¶0337), and the use of multiple queues for different priorities suggests further subdivision such as sub-queues. It would have been obvious to store packets in sub-queues based on different DSCP values to provide finer granularity of prioritization.
Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses The method as in claim 9 further comprising: in accordance with priority levels of the access class queues, transmitting the first data packet of the multiple data packets over the wireless channel to the second wireless station followed by transmitting the second data packet of the multiple data packets over the wireless channel to the second wireless station. Yang discloses transmitting packets based on priority-dependent LBT behavior (¶0220), and Hong discloses priority-based queue handling (¶0337), thereby teaching transmission order based on priority levels.
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses An apparatus comprising communication management hardware operative to: receive multiple data packets destined for delivery over a wireless channel to a second wireless station, each of the multiple data packets assigned one of multiple scheduling priority levels; and use mapping information to schedule the multiple data packets for transmission over the wireless channel, the mapping information providing a one-to-one mapping of scheduling priority levels to access class queues from which the multiple data packets are scheduled for transmission from a first wireless station to the second wireless station. Yang discloses an LAA device configured to perform transmission by executing a listen-before-talk (LBT) mechanism to contend for access to an unlicensed carrier (¶0220), which corresponds to communication over a wireless channel. Yang further discloses handling data associated with a plurality of different priority classes (¶0220), thereby teaching receiving multiple data packets assigned different priority levels. Yang further discloses configuring LBT parameters corresponding to different priority classes (¶0220), thereby teaching priority-based transmission control. However, Yang does not disclose the mapping information providing a one-to-one mapping of scheduling priority levels to access class queues from which the multiple data packets are scheduled for transmission from a first wireless station to the second wireless station. Hong discloses assigning data of different priorities to corresponding queues and access parameters (¶0337), thereby teaching mapping priority levels to respective access class queues. It would have been obvious to incorporate such queue mapping into Yang for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 16–19 recite limitations corresponding to those of claims 6–7 and 9–10, respectively, in apparatus form rather than method form, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons as set forth with respect to claims 2–7 and 9–10.
Regarding claim 20, Yang discloses Computer-readable storage hardware having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by communication management hardware of a first wireless station, cause the communication management hardware to: receive multiple data packets destined for delivery over a wireless channel to a second wireless station, each of the multiple data packets assigned one of multiple scheduling priority levels; and use mapping information to schedule the multiple data packets for transmission over the wireless channel, the mapping information providing a one-to-one mapping of scheduling priority levels to access class queues from which the multiple data packets are scheduled for transmission from the first wireless station to the second wireless station. Yang discloses functionality of a wireless device performing LBT-based transmission and priority-based handling of data (¶0220), which would be implemented via instructions executed by hardware. However, Yang does not disclose the mapping information providing a one-to-one mapping of scheduling priority levels to access class queues from which the multiple data packets are scheduled for transmission from the first wireless station to the second wireless station. Hong discloses assigning data of different priorities to corresponding queues (¶0337). It would have been obvious to implement the combined functionality of Yang and Hong in instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium for execution by communication management hardware.
Claims 5, 9, 10, 21–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0014596 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 2025/0294336 A1), and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0116815 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yang and Hong teach the method of claim 1 for the reasons previously stated. The combination does not expressly identify the mapped priority values as a first per hop behavior value and a second per hop behavior value. Lu teaches mapping distinct PHB-associated DSCP values and wireless user priorities to distinct WMM access categories; its Table 1 provides, for example, PHB value CS6 associated with voice access category AC_VO and PHB value CS1 associated with background access category AC_BK. Lu also teaches queuing packets according to PHB or corresponding priority. It would have been obvious to implement Hong’s priority-to-queue mapping using Lu’s PHB-associated values, mapping a first PHB value to a first access class queue and a second PHB value to a second access class queue via the mapping information, so that packets receive wireless queuing treatment corresponding to their marked forwarding priority.
Regarding claim 9, Yang and Hong teach the method of claim 1 for the reasons previously stated. The combination does not expressly teach using a supplemental priority marker to distinguish two packets assigned the same first priority level value and storing those packets in respective first and second sub-queues of the same first access class queue. Lu teaches that a first portion of a packet’s QoS field can identify its ordinary wireless priority or WMM access category, while a second portion can indicate enhanced priority. Lu further teaches treating traffic within the same WMM access category differently according to that enhanced priority, including placing it in different transmission queues. Lu describes a one-bit enhanced-priority indication having two states.
It would have been obvious to implement Lu’s two-state enhanced-priority indication as an optional supplemental marker: assign packets having the marker to a first sub-queue and packets lacking the marker to a second sub-queue within the first access class queue. This predictable implementation distinguishes packets sharing the same access-class priority while preserving their differentiated order of service. Thus, Lu supplies the teaching and reason for the additional intra-class classification, although presence and absence are the proposed obvious implementation of Lu’s two states, rather than words expressly used by Lu.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches claim 9 as set forth above. Yang teaches transmission using priority-dependent LBT behavior, and Lu teaches preferential scheduling of traffic assigned enhanced priority within the same WMM access category. Transmitting the first packet before the second packet would have been obvious where the first packet’s supplemental marker identifies it for the higher intra-class priority. Lu also teaches applying its QoS mapping and enhanced-priority treatment to different WMM access categories. It would therefore have been obvious to apply the same two-state supplemental-marker classification to packets assigned a second priority level value associated with a second access class queue: store a marked third packet in a first sub-queue and an unmarked fourth packet in a second sub-queue of that second access class queue. Applying the same classification independently to another access class queue provides differentiated treatment within each class using the same queuing rule.
Regarding claim 21, Yang and Hong teach the method of claim 1 as set forth in its rejection. Hong teaches using queues and access parameters corresponding to different priorities (¶337). Lu’s Table 1 teaches distinct PHB values associated with different wireless access categories and user priorities—for example, CS6 with AC_VO and CS1 with AC_BK. Selecting one PHB value for each of two differently prioritized queues would have been an obvious implementation of the priority-based queue mapping of Hong using Lu’s PHB classifications, allowing packets marked for different forwarding treatment to receive the corresponding wireless channel access treatment. Thus, the combination renders obvious a first, higher scheduling priority level and queue assigned a first PHB value and a second, lower scheduling priority level and queue assigned a second PHB value.
Regarding claim 22, Lu teaches using PHB-associated markings to determine wireless priority and access category (Table 1), while Hong teaches placing differently prioritized frames in corresponding queues (¶337). It would have been obvious to implement those associations as mapping information that directs the first PHB value to the first queue and the second PHB value to the second queue, each queue having its corresponding scheduling priority, for the differentiated forwarding and wireless access described for claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Lu teaches that packet markings, including DSCP values associated with PHBs, are read or applied to classify packets for their corresponding priority and forwarding treatment. Applying Lu’s first and second PHB-associated markings to respective first and second packets in the Yang–Hong system would have been obvious to identify the queue and wireless access treatment of each packet.
Regarding claim 24, Lu teaches examining packet QoS markings to determine priority and associated forwarding treatment, and Hong teaches queuing a frame according to its priority. It would have been obvious to retrieve the first packet’s PHB-associated value and use the mapping described for claim 22 to schedule that packet from the first access class queue for transmission, so that its wireless treatment follows its marked priority.
Regarding claim 25, for the same reasons stated for claim 24, it would have been obvious to retrieve the second packet’s distinct PHB-associated value and use the corresponding mapping to schedule that packet from the second access class queue. Lu’s Table 1 provides distinct PHB values associated with distinct access categories, and Hong teaches differentiated queuing by priority.
Regarding claim 26, Yang teaches LBT parameter sets containing CCA durations and teaches assigning different CCA durations to different priority classes, with higher priority classes receiving shorter durations. In the combined system, applying the respective CCA duration to each priority-associated queue and transmitting its selected packet after the channel remains unused for that duration would have been obvious to provide Yang’s priority-dependent channel access to the packets classified under Lu’s mapping and queued according to Hong.
Regarding claim 27, Lu teaches distinct PHB values, corresponding packet markings, wireless user priorities, and access categories (Table 1). Hong teaches selecting the queue appropriate to a frame’s priority (¶337). Configuring the two queues in the combined system so that only the selected first PHB value maps to the first queue and only the selected second PHB value maps to the second queue would have been obvious when two distinct forwarding treatments are desired: each marking then identifies its intended queue without combining differently marked traffic in that queue.
Regarding claim 28, Lu teaches inspecting a packet’s network-level QoS field to determine its marked priority and PHB, and its Table 1 associates that marking with a wireless user priority. It would have been obvious to retrieve the first PHB-associated value from the first packet and use the mapping described for claim 27 to determine its first scheduling priority level and corresponding queue.
Regarding claim 29, Yang teaches selecting a CCA duration according to priority class and executing LBT to acquire the wireless channel before transmitting. Having determined the first packet’s scheduling priority as described for claim 28, it would have been obvious to select the CCA duration assigned to that priority, monitor the channel for that duration, and transmit the packet upon detecting non-use, thereby applying Yang’s priority-dependent LBT procedure to the packet.
Regarding claim 30, Lu teaches that a PHB specifies packet forwarding treatment, including scheduling and queuing behavior, and teaches PHB-associated values for distinct wireless access categories. For the reasons stated for claim 27, selecting one respective PHB value for each of the two queues would have been obvious to keep the two forwarding treatments distinct. The selected PHB values indicate how packets assigned to the respective queues are forwarded.
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
