DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 13 February 2024.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1–20 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, Yang discloses The method as in claim 1 further comprising: depending on the 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 discloses transmitting data over a wireless channel using LBT based on priority class behavior (¶0220). In view of Hong’s teaching of assigning packets to queues based on priority (¶0337), it would have been obvious that transmission is performed depending on the scheduling priority levels assigned to the queues.
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses The method as in claim 2, wherein transmitting the multiple data packets includes: Yang discloses LBT-based transmission control (¶0220). Yang further discloses at the first wireless station: mapping an identity of a first access class queue to a first clear channel assessment window assigned to the first access class queue; and configuring LBT parameters corresponding to priority classes (¶0220), which corresponds to associating a priority (and thus queue via Hong) with a channel access condition. Yang further discloses in response to detecting non-use of the wireless channel for a time duration as specified by the first clear channel assessment window: i) retrieving a first data packet from the first access class queue, and ii) transmitting the first data packet over the wireless channel to the second wireless station. Yang discloses executing LBT and transmitting upon successful channel access (¶0220), and Hong provides the queue mapping.
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, Yang discloses The method as in claim 6 further comprising: in accordance with 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 discloses transmitting packets based on priority-dependent LBT behavior (¶0220). In view of Hong’s teaching of priority-based queueing (¶0337), it would have been obvious to transmit packets according to scheduling priority levels assigned to the queues.
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 12–19 recite limitations corresponding to those of claims 2–7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Error! Unknown document property name. whose telephone number is Error! Unknown document property name.. The examiner can normally be reached on Error! Unknown document property name..
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 Error! Unknown document property name.. 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
Prosecution Insights