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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "receiving, from the station, and ordered list…" on page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asterjadhi et al. (US 2020/0029350 A1; hereinafter Asterjadhi).
Regarding claim 1, Asterjadhi teaches a method comprising:
providing an indication to a client device by an Access Point (AP) that the AP supports multimode operation and a current sub-mode that is enabled on the AP (¶ [0056] The AP may select from among an uplink multi-user (UL-MU) scheduled access mode, a multi-user enhanced distributed control access (MU EDCA) access mode, a single-user (SU) access mode, and a low latency (LL) access mode.; ¶ [0064] An AP may advertise the uplink access modes and access categories that the AP supports. The AP may include an indication that the AP supports a low latency access mode.; ¶ [0080] The AP may set an UL MU Disable bit to a second value (such as “1”) to indicate that the AP is operating in the MU EDCA access mode. Similar signaling may be defined to enable or disable the use of the LL access mode.); and
receiving a determination from the client device to perform an operation based on the indication that the AP supports multimode operation and the current sub-mode that is enabled on the AP, wherein the operation comprises one of prefer the AP and avoid the AP (¶ [0029] Wireless communication devices may be configured to determine that the AP cannot satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter using the selected uplink access mode.; ¶ [0030] Receive a message from the first AP indicating that the first AP cannot satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter, and establish a wireless association with a second AP that can satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter.; ¶ [0063] The AP may transmit a downlink transmission to the STA that indicates which uplink access mode for the STA to use.; ¶ [0082] The first STA may discontinue using the first AP and re-associate with the second AP.; ¶ [0083] The AP may inform the STA which uplink QoS parameters cannot be satisfied using the current session configuration. The AP may inform the STA which mode is selected using various signaling.; Note: Because Asterjadhi teaches that the STA determines whether QoS can be satisfied using the selected uplink access mode (¶ [0029) after the AP signals the selected mode (¶ [0063] and ¶ [0083], a POSITA would understand that the STA’s decision to associate another AP (¶ [0030] and ¶ [0082]) is based on the current sub-mode enabled on the AP.).
Regarding claim 4, Asterjadhi teaches wherein the current sub-mode comprises a low latency mode (¶ [0064] The AP may include an indication, in a beacon message or probe response message, that the AP supports a low latency access mode. The AP-STA association may support LL access mode for all traffic.).
Regarding claim 8, Asterjadhi teaches a system comprising:
a memory storage (Fig. 10, element 1020 Memory; ¶ [0127] At least one memory.); and
a processing unit disposed in an Access Point (AP) and coupled to the memory storage (Fig. 10, element 1000 AP, element 1010 Processor; element 1020 Memory; ¶ [0127] The AP includes at least one processor and at least one memory. Each of the components can communicate with other ones of the components over at least one bus.),
wherein the processing unit is operative to (¶ [0128] The processor can generally be configured to perform various operations.):
provide an indication to a client device that the AP supports multimode operation and a current sub-mode that is enabled on the AP (¶ [0056] The AP may select from among an uplink multi-user (UL-MU) scheduled access mode, a multi-user enhanced distributed control access (MU EDCA) access mode, a single-user (SU) access mode, and a low latency (LL) access mode.; ¶ [0064] An AP may advertise the uplink access modes and access categories that the AP supports. The AP may include an indication that the AP supports a low latency access mode.; ¶ [0080] The AP may set an UL MU Disable bit to a second value (such as “1”) to indicate that the AP is operating in the MU EDCA access mode. Similar signaling may be defined to enable or disable the use of the LL access mode.); and
receive a determination from the client device to perform an operation based on the indication that the AP supports multimode operation and the current sub-mode that is enabled on the AP, wherein the operation comprises one of prefer the AP and avoid the AP (¶ [0029] Wireless communication devices may be configured to determine that the AP cannot satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter using the selected uplink access mode.; ¶ [0030] Receive a message from the first AP indicating that the first AP cannot satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter, and establish a wireless association with a second AP that can satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter.; ¶ [0063] The AP may transmit a downlink transmission to the STA that indicates which uplink access mode for the STA to use.; ¶ [0082] The first STA may discontinue using the first AP and re-associate with the second AP.; ¶ [0083] The AP may inform the STA which uplink QoS parameters cannot be satisfied using the current session configuration. The AP may inform the STA which mode is selected using various signaling.; Note: Because Asterjadhi teaches that the STA determines whether QoS can be satisfied using the selected uplink access mode (¶ [0029) after the AP signals the selected mode (¶ [0063] and ¶ [0083], a POSITA would understand that the STA’s decision to associate another AP (¶ [0030] and ¶ [0082]) is based on the current sub-mode enabled on the AP.).
Regarding claim 11, Asterjadhi teaches wherein the current sub-mode comprises a low latency mode (¶ [0064] The AP may include an indication, in a beacon message or probe response message, that the AP supports a low latency access mode. The AP-STA association may support LL access mode for all traffic.).
Regarding claim 15, Asterjadhi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (read as memory) that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions comprising (Fig. 10, element 1020 Memory; ¶ [0127] At least one memory.; ¶ [0129] The memory also can store processor or computer executable software (SW) code containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform various functions.):
providing an indication to a client device by an Access Point (AP) that the AP supports multimode operation and a current sub-mode that is enabled on the AP (¶ [0056] The AP may select from among an uplink multi-user (UL-MU) scheduled access mode, a multi-user enhanced distributed control access (MU EDCA) access mode, a single-user (SU) access mode, and a low latency (LL) access mode.; ¶ [0064] An AP may advertise the uplink access modes and access categories that the AP supports. The AP may include an indication that the AP supports a low latency access mode.; ¶ [0080] The AP may set an UL MU Disable bit to a second value (such as “1”) to indicate that the AP is operating in the MU EDCA access mode. Similar signaling may be defined to enable or disable the use of the LL access mode.); and
receiving a determination from the client device to perform an operation based on the indication that the AP supports multimode operation and the current sub-mode that is enabled on the AP, wherein the operation comprises one of prefer the AP and avoid the AP (¶ [0029] Wireless communication devices may be configured to determine that the AP cannot satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter using the selected uplink access mode.; ¶ [0030] Receive a message from the first AP indicating that the first AP cannot satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter, and establish a wireless association with a second AP that can satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter.; ¶ [0063] The AP may transmit a downlink transmission to the STA that indicates which uplink access mode for the STA to use.; ¶ [0082] The first STA may discontinue using the first AP and re-associate with the second AP.; ¶ [0083] The AP may inform the STA which uplink QoS parameters cannot be satisfied using the current session configuration. The AP may inform the STA which mode is selected using various signaling.; Note: Because Asterjadhi teaches that the STA determines whether QoS can be satisfied using the selected uplink access mode (¶ [0029) after the AP signals the selected mode (¶ [0063] and ¶ [0083], a POSITA would understand that the STA’s decision to associate another AP (¶ [0030] and ¶ [0082]) is based on the current sub-mode enabled on the AP.).
Regarding claim 18, Asterjadhi teaches wherein the current sub-mode comprises a low latency mode (¶ [0064] The AP may include an indication, in a beacon message or probe response message, that the AP supports a low latency access mode. The AP-STA association may support LL access mode for all traffic.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0046719 A1; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 2, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein the current sub-mode comprises a deterministic mode (¶ [0079] The format of the trigger fields may include Deterministic Access.).
In analogous art, Wang teaches wherein the current sub-mode comprises a deterministic mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a deterministic mode taught by Wang with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by using deterministic scheduling as a mode of operation to guarantee low latency and high throughput (Wang: ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein traffic in the deterministic mode is reserved.
In analogous art, Wang teaches wherein traffic in the deterministic mode is reserved (¶ [0092] One resource may be used for deterministic access for one or more frames. STA 1 may use deterministic access to transmit a data frame to the AP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a deterministic mode taught by Wang with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by using deterministic scheduling as a mode of operation to guarantee low latency and high throughput (Wang: ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 9, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein the current sub-mode comprises a deterministic mode (¶ [0079] The format of the trigger fields may include Deterministic Access.).
In analogous art, Wang teaches wherein the current sub-mode comprises a deterministic mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a deterministic mode taught by Wang with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by using deterministic scheduling as a mode of operation to guarantee low latency and high throughput (Wang: ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein traffic in the deterministic mode is reserved.
In analogous art, Wang teaches wherein traffic in the deterministic mode is reserved (¶ [0092] One resource may be used for deterministic access for one or more frames. STA 1 may use deterministic access to transmit a data frame to the AP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a deterministic mode taught by Wang with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by using deterministic scheduling as a mode of operation to guarantee low latency and high throughput (Wang: ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein the current sub-mode comprises a deterministic mode (¶ [0079] The format of the trigger fields may include Deterministic Access.).
In analogous art, Wang teaches wherein the current sub-mode comprises a deterministic mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a deterministic mode taught by Wang with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by using deterministic scheduling as a mode of operation to guarantee low latency and high throughput (Wang: ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 17, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein traffic in the deterministic mode is reserved.
In analogous art, Wang teaches wherein traffic in the deterministic mode is reserved (¶ [0092] One resource may be used for deterministic access for one or more frames. STA 1 may use deterministic access to transmit a data frame to the AP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a deterministic mode taught by Wang with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by using deterministic scheduling as a mode of operation to guarantee low latency and high throughput (Wang: ¶ [0002]).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi in view of Bankov et al. (Enabling Low Latency Communications in Wi-Fi Networks, 2018 IEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications; hereinafter Bankov).
Regarding claim 5, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein, with traffic in the low latency mode, no gap exists between deterministic packets (read as URLLC packets) and packets of other classes.
In analogous art, Barth teaches wherein, with traffic in the low latency mode, no gap exists (read as without waiting for backoff) between deterministic packets and packets of other classes (page 1, section II, When some STA has a URLLC packet for transmission, it starts sending a busy tone to the control channel.; page 2, section II, The STA can send the URLLC frames without waiting for backoff.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a low latency mode taught by Bankov with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by utilizing a busy tone to eliminate collisions and latency. (Bankov: page 1, section I).
Regarding claim 12, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein, with traffic in the low latency mode, no gap exists between deterministic packets and packets of other classes.
In analogous art, Barth teaches wherein, with traffic in the low latency mode, no gap exists (read as without waiting for backoff) between deterministic packets and packets of other classes (page 1, section II, When some STA has a URLLC packet for transmission, it starts sending a busy tone to the control channel.; page 2, section II, The STA can send the URLLC frames without waiting for backoff.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a low latency mode taught by Bankov with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by utilizing a busy tone to eliminate collisions and latency. (Bankov: page 1, section I).
Regarding claim 19, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach wherein, with traffic in the low latency mode, no gap exists between deterministic packets and packets of other classes.
In analogous art, Barth teaches wherein, with traffic in the low latency mode, no gap exists (read as without waiting for backoff) between deterministic packets and packets of other classes (page 1, section II, When some STA has a URLLC packet for transmission, it starts sending a busy tone to the control channel.; page 2, section II, The STA can send the URLLC frames without waiting for backoff.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a low latency mode taught by Bankov with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by utilizing a busy tone to eliminate collisions and latency. (Bankov: page 1, section I).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi in view of de la Olivia et al. (US 2022/0210834 A1; hereinafter de la Olivia).
Regarding claim 6, Asterjadhi teaches wherein the currently enabled sub-mode comprises a high reliability mode.
In analogous art, de la Olivia teaches wherein the currently enabled sub-mode comprises a high reliability mode (¶ 0117] These packets need High Reliability.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine high reliability mode taught by de la Olivia with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by utilizing periodic message transmission without collisions and latency caused by buffering, using a deterministic scheme (de la Olivia: ¶¶ [0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Asterjadhi teaches wherein the currently enabled sub-mode comprises a high reliability mode.
In analogous art, de la Olivia teaches wherein the currently enabled sub-mode comprises a high reliability mode (¶ 0117] These packets need High Reliability.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine high reliability mode taught by de la Olivia with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better performance and robustness by utilizing periodic message transmission without collisions and latency caused by buffering, using a deterministic scheme (de la Olivia: ¶¶ [0002-0003]).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi in view of Zhou et al. (US 2017/0230988 A1; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 7, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach receiving, by the AP, a dynamically assigned sub-mode to operate in based on traffic flow requirements of the client device.
In analogous art, Zhou teaches receiving, by the AP, a dynamically (read as circumstances) assigned sub-mode to operate in based on traffic flow requirements (read as data traffic types) of the client device (¶ [0060] Depending on circumstances, for STAs with heavy UL traffic, MU-only communication may advantageously reduce the impact of contention and/or collisions.; ¶ [0078] The configuration request can indicate a request to set communications between the requesting device and the responding device to one of mixed-mode communications.; ¶ [0079] The AP responds with a configuration response message indicating acceptance or rejection.; ¶ [0091] The configuration request can indicate one or more data traffic types.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine selecting a mode dynamically as taught by Zhou with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better higher throughput of the communication system, which increase user satisfaction, by selecting a mode according to various criteria in a multi-mode operation wireless communication system (Zhou: ¶¶ [0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach receive a dynamically assigned sub-mode to operate in based on traffic flow requirements of the client device.
In analogous art, Zhou teaches receive a dynamically (read as circumstances) assigned sub-mode to operate in based on traffic flow requirements (read as data traffic types) of the client device (¶ [0060] Depending on circumstances, for STAs with heavy UL traffic, MU-only communication may advantageously reduce the impact of contention and/or collisions.; ¶ [0078] The configuration request can indicate a request to set communications between the requesting device and the responding device to one of mixed-mode communications.; ¶ [0079] The AP responds with a configuration response message indicating acceptance or rejection.; ¶ [0091] The configuration request can indicate one or more data traffic types.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine selecting a mode dynamically as taught by Zhou with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve better higher throughput of the communication system, which increase user satisfaction, by selecting a mode according to various criteria in a multi-mode operation wireless communication system (Zhou: ¶¶ [0002-0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bernados et al. (US 2024/0251342 A1) discloses “Methods, Architectures, Apparatuses and Systems for Multi-Access Edge Computing Applications on Wireless Transmit-Receive Units”
Hansen et al. (US 2008/0311852 A1) discloses “Multiple Communication Link Coordination for Shared Data Transmissions”
Lou et al. (US 2022/0330344 A1) discloses “Systems and Method for Collision Resolution in a WiFi OFDMA System”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M KAYAL whose telephone number is (703)756-4576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/D.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464