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 04/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,2 and 4-5 have been amended. Claims 3 and 13-26 have been canceled in this amendment. New Claims 27-42 have been added in this amendment. Claims 1-5 and 27-42 are still pending in this application, with claims 1,27,35 and 19 being independent.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3,5,13,21-24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, the claim recites “. . a coexistence event . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention
In claim 5, line 2, “providing . . reservation information . .” should read “providing . . reservation information before the first data transmission is initiated for the first . .”
In claim 5, the claim is unclear to relate to the claimed invention of claim 1
In claim 27, line 10, the claim recites “. . a coexistence event . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention
In claim 35, line 8, the claim recites “. . a coexistence event . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention
In claims 37-38, the claim recites “. . the first wireless device . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed inventions on claims 29 and 30
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to objections for the disclosure have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 04/08/2026 on page 9
of applicant's remark regarding Claim 1, the applicant
argues that Xu doesn’t any WLAN communication and a coexistence interference event involving a non-WLAN technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Xu discloses the concept of preempting transmission for one type of communication when it interferes with other type of communication. Xu further discloses that their claimed invention can apply to any communication systems (Xu Para[0039-0041,0048-49]). It is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable... . [T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims—American Perspectives, 21 Int’! Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-5 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 27-42 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claims 1,27 and 35, the claims recite limitations “establishing an association with WLAN”, initiate a first data transmission”, determining a coexistence interference involving a non-WLAN” which are not clearly tied to each other such as is first transmission initiated on a connection established on WLNA, what triggers interference monitoring or detection and determining to preempt the first transmission, is there any ongoing connection on the non-WLAN, etc.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 1.
Claims 28-34 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 27.
Claims 36-42 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 35.
In claim 5, the claim recites limitations “providing signaling” and initiate second transmission” which are not clearly tied to the base claim and not providing how WLAN and non-WLAN technologies are involved in the claimed invention.
In claims 29 and 37, the claim recites “monitor for signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted” is not clear as where the signal is coming from.
Claims 30 and 38 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 29 and 37 accordingly.
In claims 30 and 38, the claim recites “monitor for signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted” is not clear as where the signal coming from. It is also unclear as to which technology the low latency data flow is active.
In claims 31 and 39, the claim recites “signaling is provided” is not clear as the signaling is provided to the first wireless device or provided by the first wireless device. The claim also recites “receiving signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted” is not clear as where the signal is coming from.
Claims 32 and 40 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 31 and 39 accordingly.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2,4,27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al. (US 2022/0417954 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Hong”) in view of Aboul-Magd et al. (US 2020/0281008 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Magd”) and further in view of Xu (US 2022/0060308 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Xu”).
Regarding claims 1,27 and 35, Hong discloses a method, a first wireless device and apparatus, performing a first data transmission for a first duration (Hong Fig.3,4 Para[0041-42] Resources scheduled for eMBB service (i.e. first data transmission)); determining to preempt the first data transmission prior to completion of the first duration (Hong Fig.3,6 Para[0046-48] A higher priority service causing preemption of lower priority service resources within a same time slot (i.e. duration)); and transmitting signaling to the second wireless device indicating that the first data transmission is preempted prior to completion of the first duration (Hong Fig.6 Para[0046-48] A DCI is sent); wherein the first data transmission is configured for a first duration (Hong Fig.6 Para[0046-48] A DCI is sent to indicate preemption of transmission resource of lower priority service in the slot).
Hong does not explicitly disclose establishing a wireless association with a second wireless device based on a wireless local area network (WLAN) technology; initiating a first data transmission to the second wireless device.
However, Magd from the same field of invention discloses by a first wireless device (Magd Fig.2,3 Para[0060-61] An AP (i.e. first wireless device)): establishing a wireless association with a second wireless device based on a wireless local area network (WLAN) technology (Magd Fig.2,3 Para[0036, 0058-61] A communication between devices can be in WLAN), initiating a first data transmission to the second wireless device (Magd Fig.2,3 Para[0058-63] A communication between devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong to have the feature of “by a first wireless device: establishing a wireless association with a second wireless device based on a wireless local area network (WLAN) technology; initiating a first data transmission to the second wireless device” as taught by Magd. The motivation would have been to reduce delay to avoid effect to real-time experience of the online gaming (Magd Para[0003]).
Hong in view of Magd does not explicitly disclose determining that a coexistence event is occurring, wherein determining to preempt the first data transmission prior to completion of the first duration is based at least in part on the coexistence event occurring at the first wireless device involving a non-WLAN technology.
However, Xu from a similar field of invention discloses determining that a coexistence event is occurring (XU Para[0039-41,0048-49] The transmission conflict of URLLC and eMBB service), wherein determining to preempt the first data transmission prior to completion of the first duration is based at least in part on the coexistence event occurring at the first wireless device involving a non-WLAN technology (XU Para[0039-41,0048-49] The URLLC causing preemption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong and Magd to have the feature of “determining that a coexistence event is occurring, wherein determining to preempt the first data transmission prior to completion of the first duration is based at least in part on the coexistence event occurring at the first wireless device involving a non-WLAN technology” as taught by Xu. The motivation would have been to improve efficiency of communication (Xu Para[0005]).
Specifically for claims 27 and 35, Hong discloses the apparatus that includes a processor (Hong Fig.17,18 Para[0236] A processor), memory (Hong Fig.17,18 Para[0236] memory) and antennas (Hong Fig.17,18 Para[0236] network interface).
Regarding claim 2, Hong in view of Magd and Xu discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong further discloses receiving, after the first data transmission is initiated, data configured for transmission as a low-latency frame (Hong Fig.3,6 Para[0041-48] A URLLC (i.e. low latency) service), wherein determining to preempt the first data transmission prior to completion of the first duration is based at least in part on receiving the data configured for transmission as a low-latency frame (Hong Fig.3,6 Para[0041-48] The URLLC (i.e. low latency) service causing preemption of lower priority service resources within a same time slot); and initiating a second data transmission to transmit the data configured for transmission as a low-latency frame after transmitting the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted, wherein the second data transmission is initiated prior to completion of the first duration (Hong Fig.3,6 Para[0041-48] The URLLC data sent).
Regarding claim 4, Hong in view of Magd and Xu discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted further includes information indicating an expected end time for the coexistence interference event occurring at the first wireless device (XU Para[0084] The transmission ending time of resource cancellation (i.e. coexistence)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong and Magd to have the feature of “wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted further includes information indicating an expected end time for the coexistence interference event occurring at the first wireless device” as taught by Xu. The motivation would have been to improve efficiency of communication (Xu Para[0005]).
Claims 5,28-30 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd, Xu and further in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2023/0209566 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Hosseini”).
Regarding claim 5, Hong in view of Magd and Xu discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd and Xu does not explicitly disclose providing signaling including resource unit waitlist reservation information for the first data transmission, wherein the resource unit waitlist reservation information indicates one or more wireless devices including the second wireless device for which preemption of the first data transmission may be performed; and initiating a second data transmission to one of the wireless devices for which preemption of the first data transmission may be performed after transmitting the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted and prior to completion of the first duration.
However, Hosseini from a similar field of invention discloses providing signaling including resource unit waitlist reservation information for the first data transmission, wherein the resource unit waitlist reservation information indicates one or more wireless devices including the second wireless device for which preemption of the first data transmission may be performed (Hosseini Fig.3 Para[0112-115] The base station sends configuration for resources which can be preempted when needed); and initiating a second data transmission to one of the wireless devices for which preemption of the first data transmission may be performed after transmitting the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted and prior to completion of the first duration (Hosseini Fig.3 Para[0112-115] The base station sends DLPI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong, Magd and Xu to have the feature of “providing signaling including resource unit waitlist reservation information for the first data transmission, wherein the resource unit waitlist reservation information indicates one or more wireless devices including the second wireless device for which preemption of the first data transmission may be performed; and initiating a second data transmission to one of the wireless devices for which preemption of the first data transmission may be performed after transmitting the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted and prior to completion of the first duration” as taught by Hosseini. The motivation would have been to use priority indication for preemption (Hosseini Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 28 and 36, Hong in view of Magd and Xu discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claims 27 and 35. Hong in view of Magd and Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein control information for the first data transmission includes an indication of whether preemption of the first data transmission is possible.
However, Hosseini from a similar field of invention discloses wherein control information for the first data transmission includes an indication of whether preemption of the first data transmission is possible (Hosseini Fig.3 Para[0112-115] The base station sends DLPI (i.e. control information)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong, Magd and Xu to have the feature of “wherein control information for the first data transmission includes an indication of whether preemption of the first data transmission is possible” as taught by Hosseini. The motivation would have been to use priority indication for preemption (Hosseini Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 29 and 37, Hong in view of Magd, Xu and Hosseini discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claims 27 and 35. Hosseini further discloses wherein control information for the first data transmission includes an indication that the first data transmission is directed to a different wireless device, wherein determine to monitor the first data transmission for signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted based at least in part on the indication of whether preemption of the first data transmission is possible (Hosseini Fig.3 Para[0112-115] The DLPI is monitored and it indicates preemption of resource for any other UEs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong, Magd and Xu to have the feature of “wherein control information for the first data transmission includes an indication that the first data transmission is directed to a different wireless device, wherein determine to monitor the first data transmission for signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted based at least in part on the indication of whether preemption of the first data transmission is possible” as taught by Hosseini. The motivation would have been to use priority indication for preemption (Hosseini Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 30 and 38, Hong in view of Magd, Xu and Hosseini discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claims 27 and 35. Hosseini further discloses determine that a low latency data flow is active for the wireless device; wherein determining to monitor the first data transmission for signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted is further based at least in part on the low latency data flow being active for the wireless device (Hosseini Fig.3 Para[0105,0112-115] The second operation state (i.e. URLLC)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong, Magd and Xu to have the feature of “determine that a low latency data flow is active for the wireless device; wherein determining to monitor the first data transmission for signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted is further based at least in part on the low latency data flow being active for the wireless device” as taught by Hosseini. The motivation would have been to use priority indication for preemption (Hosseini Para[0002]).
Claims 31,33,39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd, Xu and further in view of GUO et al. (US 2025/0031224 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Guo”).
Regarding claims 31 and 39, Hong in view of Magd and Xu discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claims 27 and 35. Hong in view of Magd and Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein control information for the first data transmission includes an indication of a periodicity at which signaling indicating whether the first data transmission is preempted is provided during the first data transmission, wherein receive signaling indicating whether the first data transmission is preempted at the indicated periodicity during the first data transmission.
However, Guo from a similar field of invention discloses wherein control information for the first data transmission includes an indication of a periodicity at which signaling indicating whether the first data transmission is preempted is provided during the first data transmission, wherein receive signaling indicating whether the first data transmission is preempted at the indicated periodicity during the first data transmission (Guo Para[0127-128] A periodicity for pre-emption indication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong, Magd and Xu to have the feature of “wherein control information for the first data transmission includes an indication of a periodicity at which signaling indicating whether the first data transmission is preempted is provided during the first data transmission, wherein receive signaling indicating whether the first data transmission is preempted at the indicated periodicity during the first data transmission” as taught by Guo. The motivation would have been for efficient resource allocation (Guo Para[0003]).
Regarding claims 33 and 41, Hong in view of Magd and Xu discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claims 27 and 35. Hong in view of Magd and Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted includes one or more of: a physical layer waveform configured to indicate that data transmission preemption is occurring; or media access control (MAC) signaling configured to indicate that data transmission preemption is occurring.
However, Guo from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted includes one or more of: a physical layer waveform configured to indicate that data transmission preemption is occurring (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); or media access control (MAC) signaling configured to indicate that data transmission preemption is occurring (Guo Para[0127] A MAC-CE is used for indication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong, Magd and Xu to have the feature of “wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted includes media access control (MAC) signaling configured to indicate that data transmission preemption is occurring” as taught by Guo. The motivation would have been for efficient resource allocation (Guo Para[0003]).
Claims 32 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd, Xu, Guo and further in view of Islam et al. (US 2020/0389274 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Islam”).
Regarding claims 32 and 40, Hong in view of Magd, Xu and Guo discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd, Xu and Guo does not explicitly disclose wherein new frame signaling is used to indicate that the first data transmission is preempted, wherein if no new frame signaling is present at the indicated periodicity, determine that the first data transmission is not preempted.
However, Islam from a similar field of invention discloses wherein new frame signaling is used to indicate that the first data transmission is preempted, wherein if no new frame signaling is present at the indicated periodicity, determine that the first data transmission is not preempted (Islam Fig.6 Para[0057-58] A PI indicates presence of second data for the UE to know about preemption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong, Magd, Xu and Guo to have the feature of “wherein new frame signaling is used to indicate that the first data transmission is preempted, wherein if no new frame signaling is present at the indicated periodicity, determine that the first data transmission is not preempted” as taught by Islam. The motivation would have been for enabling reliable and low latency communication (Islam Para[0002]).
Claims 34 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd, Xu and further in view of LI et al. (US 2023/0262785 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claims 34 and 42, Hong in view of Magd and Xu discloses the method, the first wireless device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd and Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted is transmitted on one of: a 20 MHz sub-channel of a multi-user physical protocol data unit; or a configured resource unit assignment for the first data transmission within a 20 MHz sub-channel of a multi-user physical protocol data unit.
However, Li from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted is transmitted on one of: a 20 MHz sub-channel of a multi-user physical protocol data unit (Li Fig.8a Para[0096,0236-241] A primary channel of 20Mhz is a subchannel and indication is sent on the primary channel); or a configured resource unit assignment for the first data transmission within a 20 MHz sub-channel of a multi-user physical protocol data unit (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong, Magd and Xu to have the feature of “by a first wireless device: establishing a wireless association with a second wireless device; initiating a first data transmission to the second wireless device” as taught by Li. The motivation would have been to reduce a data transmission delay between two devices and increase a data transmission throughput between the two devices. (Li Para[0006]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0389069 to Ciochina
Conclusion
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights