DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on June 22, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are presently pending with claims 1, 8, and 15 being independent. Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-19 are original claims. Claims 6 and 13 have been previously presented. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §112(b), claim 20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The invocation of §112(b), claim 20, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. §103. Refer to updated rejection of claims 1-20 below in view of amendments.
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 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi in view of Maamari et al. (US 2023/0319717 A1; hereinafter Maamari).
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 currently 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.),
wherein the indication (read as UL MU disable bit in the operating mode (OM) control field) informs the client device which current sub-mode (read as MU EDCA access mode) is enabled on the AP (Fig. 1, element 102 Access Point, element 144 first STA; ¶ [0080] The first AP 102 may set an UL MU Disable bit to a second value (such as “1”) to indicate that the first AP 102 is operating in the MU EDCA access mode and to cause the first STA 144 to enable contention-based access. The first AP 102 may set the UL MU Disable bit in OM control fields to the second value.),
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 currently enabled on the AP, wherein the operation comprises one of prefer the AP and avoid the AP for its exchanges (¶ [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.).
Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach, wherein the current sub-mode for the AP is dynamically assigned based on dynamically discovered traffic flow requirements in a covered area.
In analogous art, Maamari teaches wherein the current sub-mode (read as operation mode) for the AP is dynamically assigned based on dynamically discovered traffic flow requirements in a covered area (Fig. 4 – wireless communication system that supports enhanced burst transmission, element 115 UE, element 105 base station, element 439 burst communication manager, element 444 settings data; ¶ [0046] Each base station 105 may provide communication coverage for a particular geographic area.; ¶ [0076] The scheduling or network device may receive multiple repetitive or similar uplink scheduling requests from a UE and may determine a burst transmission would be more efficient, such as based on thresholds set.; ¶ [0122] The settings data 444 may include one or more types of burst transmission operation modes and/or thresholds or conditions for switching between burst transmission modes and/or configurations.; ¶ [0145] The UE 115 transmits one or more scheduling requests to the base station 105 requesting uplink resources. The base station 105, such as the burst communication manager 439, may determine to perform burst transmissions, configure UEs for burst transmissions, and/or schedule burst transmissions based on the scheduling requests.).
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 switching modes taught by Maamari with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve resource utilization and reduce transmission delay by dynamically selecting the access point’s operating mode based on discovered traffic demands (Maamari: ¶ [0221]-[0224]).
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 currently 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.),
wherein the indication (read as UL MU disable bit in the operating mode (OM) control field) informs the client device which current sub-mode (read as MU EDCA access mode) is enabled on the AP (Fig. 1, element 102 Access Point, element 144 first STA; ¶ [0080] The first AP 102 may set an UL MU Disable bit to a second value (such as “1”) to indicate that the first AP 102 is operating in the MU EDCA access mode and to cause the first STA 144 to enable contention-based access. The first AP 102 may set the UL MU Disable bit in OM control fields to the second value.),
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 currently enabled on the AP, wherein the operation comprises one of prefer the AP and avoid the AP for its exchanges (¶ [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.).
Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach, wherein the current sub-mode for the AP is dynamically assigned based on dynamically discovered traffic flow requirements in a covered area.
In analogous art, Maamari teaches wherein the current sub-mode (read as operation mode) for the AP is dynamically assigned based on dynamically discovered traffic flow requirements in a covered area (Fig. 4 – wireless communication system that supports enhanced burst transmission, element 115 UE, element 105 base station, element 439 burst communication manager, element 444 settings data; ¶ [0046] Each base station 105 may provide communication coverage for a particular geographic area.; ¶ [0076] The scheduling or network device may receive multiple repetitive or similar uplink scheduling requests from a UE and may determine a burst transmission would be more efficient, such as based on thresholds set.; ¶ [0122] The settings data 444 may include one or more types of burst transmission operation modes and/or thresholds or conditions for switching between burst transmission modes and/or configurations.; ¶ [0145] The UE 115 transmits one or more scheduling requests to the base station 105 requesting uplink resources. The base station 105, such as the burst communication manager 439, may determine to perform burst transmissions, configure UEs for burst transmissions, and/or schedule burst transmissions based on the scheduling requests.).
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 switching modes taught by Maamari with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve resource utilization and reduce transmission delay by dynamically selecting the access point’s operating mode based on discovered traffic demands (Maamari: ¶ [0221]-[0224]).
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 currently 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.),
wherein the indication (read as UL MU disable bit in the operating mode (OM) control field) informs the client device which current sub-mode (read as MU EDCA access mode) is enabled on the AP (Fig. 1, element 102 Access Point, element 144 first STA; ¶ [0080] The first AP 102 may set an UL MU Disable bit to a second value (such as “1”) to indicate that the first AP 102 is operating in the MU EDCA access mode and to cause the first STA 144 to enable contention-based access. The first AP 102 may set the UL MU Disable bit in OM control fields to the second value.),
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 for its exchanges (¶ [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.).
Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach, wherein the current sub-mode for the AP is dynamically assigned based on dynamically discovered traffic flow requirements in a covered area.
In analogous art, Maamari teaches wherein the current sub-mode (read as operation mode) for the AP is dynamically assigned based on dynamically discovered traffic flow requirements in a covered area (Fig. 4 – wireless communication system that supports enhanced burst transmission, element 115 UE, element 105 base station, element 439 burst communication manager, element 444 settings data; ¶ [0046] Each base station 105 may provide communication coverage for a particular geographic area.; ¶ [0076] The scheduling or network device may receive multiple repetitive or similar uplink scheduling requests from a UE and may determine a burst transmission would be more efficient, such as based on thresholds set.; ¶ [0122] The settings data 444 may include one or more types of burst transmission operation modes and/or thresholds or conditions for switching between burst transmission modes and/or configurations.; ¶ [0145] The UE 115 transmits one or more scheduling requests to the base station 105 requesting uplink resources. The base station 105, such as the burst communication manager 439, may determine to perform burst transmissions, configure UEs for burst transmissions, and/or schedule burst transmissions based on the scheduling requests.).
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 switching modes taught by Maamari with multi-mode operation as taught by Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve resource utilization and reduce transmission delay by dynamically selecting the access point’s operating mode based on discovered traffic demands (Maamari: ¶ [0221]-[0224]).
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.).
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi in view of Maamari further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0046719 A1; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 2, Asterjadhi and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 Maamari further 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 and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 Maamari further in view of de la Olivia et al. (US 2022/0210834 A1; hereinafter de la Olivia).
Regarding claim 6, Asterjadhi and Maamari do not explicitly teach 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 and Maamari do not explicitly teach 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 Maamari further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2017/0230988 A1; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 7, Asterjadhi and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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 and Maamari do 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 switching modes taught by Maamari and 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
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”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights