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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 09/12/2023.
Claims 6-12 have been canceled. New claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 1-5 and 13-26 are pending in this application, with claims 1,13 and 21 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/03/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3,5,13,21-24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “. . transmitting signaling . .” should read ““. . transmitting signaling to the second wireless device. .”
In claim 2, line 2, “receiving data configured” should read “receiving data after the first data transmission is initiated”
In claim 3, line 2, “determining that a” should read “determining after the first data transmission is initiated that a”
In claim 3, line 2,, 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, line 3, “one or more wireless devices” should read “one or more wireless devices including the second wireless device”
In claim 5, the claim is unclear to relate to the claimed invention of claim 1
In claim 13, line 7, “signaling indicating that” should read “signaling from the AP indicating that”
In claim 13, line 8, “transmission for” should read “transmission to the wireless device for”
In claim 13, line 11, “signaling indicating that” should read “signaling from the AP indicating that”
In claim 21, line 9, “. . transmitting signaling . .” should read ““. . transmitting signaling to the second wireless device. .”
In claim 22, line 2, “receiving data configured” should read “receiving data after the first data transmission is initiated”
In claim 24, line 2, “determining that a” should read “determining after the first data transmission is initiated that a”
In claim 24, line 2,, the claim recites “. . a coexistence event . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention
In claim 26, line 2, “providing . . reservation information . .” should read “providing . . reservation information before the first data transmission is initiated for the first . .”
In claim 26, line 3, “one or more wireless devices” should read “one or more wireless devices including the second wireless device”
In claim 26, the claim is unclear to relate to the claimed invention of claim 21
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the published the disclosure, B0-B32 for Fig.11 is not explained
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-15 and 17-18 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 14-15, the phrase “control information” is unclear as to what it refers to such as a specific field in the first data transmission or another signal is sent with control information.
Claim 15 is rejected based upon claim dependency to independent claims 14.
In claim 17, the phrase “control information” is unclear as to what it refers to such as a specific field in the first data transmission or another signal is sent with control information.
Claim 18 is rejected based upon claim dependency to independent claims 17.
In claim 18, the phrase “new frame” is unclear as to what it refers to such as a specific field in the first data transmission or another signal is sent.
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 1-2,13 and 21-23 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”).
Regarding claims 1,13 and 21, Hong discloses a method and apparatus, perform: receive signaling indicating that the AP wireless device is 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 indicating that the first data transmission is preempted prior to completion of the first duration; 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 by a first wireless device: establishing a wireless association with a second wireless device; 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 (Magd Fig.2,3 Para[0058-61] A communication between devices), 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; 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]).
Specifically for claims 13 and 21, 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 claims 2 and 22, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong further discloses receiving 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 23, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong further discloses 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 within the same slot).
Claims 3-4 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd and further in view of Xu (US 2022/0060308 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Xu”).
Regarding claims 3 and 24, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd does not explicitly disclose determining that a coexistence event is occurring at the first wireless device, 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.
However, Xu from a similar field of invention discloses determining that a coexistence event is occurring at the first wireless device (XU Para[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 (XU Para[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 at the first wireless device, 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” as taught by Xu. The motivation would have been to improve efficiency of communication (Xu Para[0005]).
Regarding claims 4 and 25, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd does not explicitly disclose wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted further includes information indicating an expected end time for the coexistence event occurring at the first wireless device.
However, Xu from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted further includes information indicating an expected end time for the coexistence event occurring at the first wireless device (XU Para[0084] The transmission ending time of resource cancellation (i.e. coexistence)).
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 “wherein the signaling indicating that the first data transmission is preempted further includes information indicating an expected end time for the coexistence 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 5,14-16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd and further in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2023/0209566 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Hosseini”).
Regarding claims 5 and 26, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd 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 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 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 and Magd 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 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 claim 14, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd 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 and Magd 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 claim 15, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd does not explicitly disclose 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.
However, Hosseini from a similar field of invention 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).
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 “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 claim 16, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd does not explicitly disclose 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.
However, Hosseini from a similar field of invention 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)).
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 “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 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd and further in view of GUO et al. (US 2025/0031224 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Guo”).
Regarding claim 17, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd 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 and Magd 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 claim 19, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd 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 and Magd 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]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd, Guo and further in view of Islam et al. (US 2020/0389274 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Islam”).
Regarding claim 18, Hong in view of Magd and Guo discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd 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 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]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Magd and further in view of LI et al. (US 2023/0262785 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claim 20, Hong in view of Magd discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Hong in view of Magd 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 and Magd 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:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0416964 to Fang
2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0312471 to Huang
3. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0352695 to Li
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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