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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 13,2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 26-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 46, the occurrence of “the indicated RUs” in line 1 has no antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35, 39, 43, and 47 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 35, 39 and 47, recite that the LL indication is included in a Multi-Station Block Acknowledgements(Multi-STA BlockACK) frame transmitted by the non-AP STA. However, the originally filed disclosure does not describe an LL indication being carried in a Multi-STA BlockACK frame. [0063] discloses that an intended receiver STA(STA1) transmits an acknowledgment frame, such as an ACK, BA or M-BA, while a different, unintended receiver STA, STA2 having buffered LL traffic transmits it's LL traffic using an allocated RA-RU. Thus, the disclosed M-BA serves its conventional ACK function and is transmitted by a different STA from the STA having the buffered LL traffic. [0090] also describes the LLI as a separate LLI frame 604 transmitted in a non-HT PPDU or non-HT duplicated PPDU. The original disclosure neither describes including the LLI in an M-BA frame nor suggests modifying the M-BA frame to carry such an indication. Thus, the original disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the matter recited in claims 35, 39 and 47.
Claims 43 and 50 recite, transmitting, following receipt of an LL indication, a buffer-status-report-poll trigger frame and then receiving, in response to the BSRP trigger frame, an LL indication feedback frame from the non-AP STA.The originally filed disclosure describes different response. [0091] teaches that the AP may transmit BSRP trigger frame 602 after receiving LLI frame 604, but the AP subsequently receive one or more BSR frames 608 from the non-AP STAs. [0087] also states that a BSRP trigger frame triggers transmission of a BSR frame for LL traffic not an LLI feedback frame. The originally filed specification does not disclose an LLI feedback frame transmitted in response to a BSRP trigger or establish that such an LLI feedback frame may replace the disclosed BSR response. Accordingly, claims 43 and 50 introduce a response-frame type and signaling sequence not shown to have been possessed by the inventor as of the filling date.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26-32, 36-38, 42-46 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al(US 2022/0225323 A1) in view of Viger et al(US 2024/0291763 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Wang ‘223 teaches, a method for low-latency (LL) traffic communication between wireless local area network (WLAN) devices([0072], [0089] and Figs. 1, 4, a WLAN system that supports applications requiring low latency), the method comprising: transmitting, by an access point (AP), an LL-indication allowance indicating that the AP supports receipt of LL indications from a non-access point station (non-AP STA)([0118] an AP advertising its support for low latency remissions by including a low latency element in its beacon or management frames. The low latency element indicates that the AP supports receiving low latency bitmaps or request from this station serving as an allowance); obtaining, by the AP, a transmission opportunity (TXOP)([0122] and Fig. 3, assigning TWTs and monitoring the medium for low latency transmission opportunities(TXOP).The AP operates within these TXOPs to send trigger frames and poll the STAs for low latency data transmissions or resource requests);
and during the TXOP, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder, a response frame comprising an LL indication representing buffered LL traffic needs for uplink traffic to be transmitted from the non-AP STA to the AP([0110], [0111] and Figs. 4-5, the AP receiving Air resource request report such as an NDP feedback report from a polled STA acting as a responder. The response report provides the AP was an indication representing the STA’s buffered low latency traffic needs, such as meeting specific delay or access category priorities for uplink transmission) wherein the non-AP STA transmits the LL indication based on the LL-indication allowance([0110], [0112] and Fig. 4, The station monitoring the medium for low latency triggers a response when it detects a pole or assignment addressed to it by the AP. The STA transmits its resource request report because it was polled by the AP and meets the low latency requirements by the AP) and
wherein the LL indication is distinct from a buffer status report indicating an amount of traffic buffered at the non-AP STA([0086], [0115] and Fig. 5, different from the standard buffer status report, the LL indication is indicated by using specific bits to indicate traffic priorities details delay balance and low latency access categories).
Wang ‘223 does not explicitly teach, obtaining, by the AP, a transmission opportunity (TXOP); and during the TXOP, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder, a response frame.
Viger ‘763 teaches, obtaining, by the AP, a transmission opportunity (TXOP) ([0100], [0220]. [0222] and Figs. 7a and 10d, the AP obtaining TXOP by computing non-AP STAs); and during the TXOP, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder, a response frame([0334], [0335] and Fig. 10b, 10d, the AP sending a trigger frame addressed to the scheduled non-AP MLD, and the non-AP STA forms a trigger based PPDU as response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Wang ‘223, by incorporating the teaching of Viger ‘763, since such modification would provide more efficient multilink communication mechanisms to provide low latency, low latency reliable services, as suggested by Viger ‘763([0010]).
Regarding claims 27 and 42, the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations, Wang’323 further teaches, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA, an indication of a traffic stream associated with a LL requirement([0102], [0118] and Fig. 4, a STA may use a traffic specification (TSPEC) or a low latency request frame to indicate to the AP it that has one or more low latency data streams), wherein the LL indication relates to the traffic stream associated with the LL requirement([0096], [0112] and Fig. 5, the STA’s triggered resource request repot (the LL indication) includes detailed feedback for the low latency traffic streams requested by the AP. Thus, the transmitted LL indication directly relates to the specific low latency traffic stream and its associated requirements).
Regarding claims 28, 43 and 50, the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations, Viger ‘763 further teaches, transmitting, by the AP following receipt of the LL indication, a buffer status report poll (BSRP) trigger frame for receipt by the non-AP STA([0337] and Fig. 7a, the AP may schedule and transmit a trigger frame for BSRP at the start of a low-latency service period. This BSRP trigger frame uses a trigger type value to poll the scheduled non-AP STA); and receiving, in response to the BSRP trigger frame, LL feedback from the non-AP STA([0337] and Fig. 7a, in response to the BSRP trigger frame the scheduled non-AP STA informs the AP of the pending LL traffic stream data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Wang ‘223, by incorporating the teaching of Viger ‘763, since such modification would provide more efficient multilink communication mechanisms to provide low latency, low latency reliable services, as suggested by Viger ‘763([0010]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations, Wang’323 further teaches, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA, one or more buffered LL traffic frames([0088], [0111] and Figs. 3, 4, after the AP transmits scheduled triggers based on the resource request reports, the STAs transmit their uplink data. The AP receives the subsequent uplink data transmissions which includes the buffered low latency traffic flow).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations, Wang’323 further teaches, transmitting, by the AP in response to the LL indication, a trigger frame to schedule uplink transmission of one or more LL traffic frames from the non-AP STA([0088], [0111] and Figs. 3, 4, the AP transmits scheduled triggers(a trigger frame) based on the received NDP reports(the LL indications). The scheduled triggers are used to schedule and imitate the subsequent uplink data transmissions from the identified STAs).
Regarding claims 31, 37 and 45 the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations, Wang’323 further teaches,, wherein the trigger frame indicates one or more resource units (RUs) for transmission of the one or more LL traffic frames([0076], [0091] and Fig. 3, the AP transmits a trigger frame including a set of resource unites(RU) allocated for STAs to transmit their uplink traffic).
Regarding claims 32,38 and 46, the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations, Wang’323 further teaches, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA, the one or more LL traffic frames over the one or more RUs([0088], [0091] and Fig. 3, the STAs transmit their uplink data on the resource units(RUs) previously allocated by the AP’s trigger frame).
Regarding claim 36, Wang ‘223 teaches, a method for low-latency (LL) traffic frame communication between WLAN (wireless local area network) devices([0072], [0089] and Figs. 1, 4, a WLAN system that supports applications requiring low latency), comprising: receiving, by an access point (AP), an indication that a non-AP STA supports reporting of buffered LL traffic([0118] and Fig. 4, a STA including a low latency element in tis probe request or association request frames to indicate that it has low latency traffic . The low latency element indicates the STA’s support for low latency ID bitmaps an low latency reporting to AP);
obtaining, by the AP, a transmission opportunity (TXOP)([0122] and Fig. 3, the AP and STAs monitoring the medium to obtain low latency transmission opportunities(TXOPs). The AP operate within the acquired TXOPs to send trigger and poll the STAs for low latency data transmissions);during the TXOP, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder, an LL indication representing buffered LL traffic needs for uplink traffic to be transmitted from the non-AP STA to the AP([0110], [0111] and Figs. 4, 5, the receiving a resource request report such as an NDP feedback report from a polled STA acting as a responder. The report serves as the LL indication by detailing the STA’s buffered low-latency traffic needs, representing delay bound, traffic priorities and low latency access categories for uplink transmission); and
transmitting, by the AP in response to the LL indication, a trigger frame to schedule uplink transmission of one or more LL traffic frames from the non-AP STA([0081], [0111] and Figs. 3, 4, after receiving the resource request reports(e.g. NDP reports) the AP identifies the requesting STAs and transmits scheduled triggers( a trigger frame) based on these reports. The scheduling triggers are used to schedule and trigger the subsequent uplink data transmissions from STAs).
Wang ‘223 does not explicitly teach, obtaining, by the AP, a transmission opportunity (TXOP); and during the TXOP, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder, a response frame.
Viger ‘763 teaches, obtaining, by the AP, a transmission opportunity (TXOP) ([0100], [0220]. [0222] and Figs. 7a and 10d, the AP obtaining TXOP by computing non-AP STAs); and during the TXOP, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder, a response frame([0334], [0335] and Fig. 10b, 10d, the AP sending a trigger frame addressed to the scheduled non-AP MLD, and the non-AP STA forms a trigger based PPDU as response) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Wang ‘223, by incorporating the teaching of Viger ‘763, since such modification would provide more efficient multilink communication mechanisms to provide low latency, low latency reliable services, as suggested by Viger ‘763([0010]).
Regarding claim 44, Wang ‘223 teaches, a wireless access point (AP)([0028] and Fig. 1A, an access point for establishing WLAN), comprising:
one or more wireless transceivers; and one or more processors operably coupled to the one or more wireless transceivers, wherein the one or more processors are arranged to([0032] , [0032], [0036] and Fig. 1B, hardware configuration of the network devices comprising processor coupled to a transceiver):
receive, from a non-AP STA, an indication that the non-AP STA supports reporting of buffered LL traffic([0118] and Fig. 4, a STA including a low latency element in tis probe request or association request frames to indicate that it has low latency traffic . The low latency element indicates the STA’s support for low latency ID bitmaps an low latency reporting to AP); obtain a transmission opportunity (TXOP) )([0122] and Fig. 3, the AP and STAs monitoring the medium to obtain low latency transmission opportunities(TXOPs). The AP operate within the acquired TXOPs to send trigger and poll the STAs for low latency data transmissions);
during the TXOP, receive, from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder,an LL indication representing buffered LL traffic needs for uplink traffic to be transmitted from the non-AP STA to the AP([0110], [0111] and Figs. 4, 5, the receiving a resource request report such as an NDP feedback report from a polled STA acting as a responder. The report serves as the LL indication by detailing the STA’s buffered low-latency traffic needs, representing delay bound, traffic priorities and low latency access categories for uplink transmission); and transmit, in response to the LL indication, a trigger frame to schedule uplink transmission of one or more LL traffic frames from the non-AP STA([0081], [0111] and Figs. 3, 4, after receiving the resource request reports(e.g. NDP reports) the AP identifies the requesting STAs and transmits scheduled triggers( a trigger frame) based on these reports. The scheduling triggers are used to schedule and trigger the subsequent uplink data transmissions from STAs).
Wang ‘223 does not explicitly teach, obtaining, by the AP, a transmission opportunity (TXOP); and during the TXOP, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder, a response frame.
Viger ‘763 teaches, obtaining, by the AP, a transmission opportunity (TXOP) ([0100], [0220]. [0222] and Figs. 7a and 10d, the AP obtaining TXOP by computing non-AP STAs); and during the TXOP, receiving, by the AP from the non-AP STA operating as a TXOP responder, a response frame([0334], [0335] and Fig. 10b, 10d, the AP sending a trigger frame addressed to the scheduled non-AP MLD, and the non-AP STA forms a trigger based PPDU as response) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Wang ‘223, by incorporating the teaching of Viger ‘763, since such modification would provide more efficient multilink communication mechanisms to provide low latency, low latency reliable services, as suggested by Viger ‘763([0010]).
Claims 33, 40 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hedayat (US 2016/0100408 A1).
Regarding claims 33, 40 and 48 the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein obtaining a TXOP by the AP includes receiving a Reverse Direction Grant (RDG) from the non-AP STA as a TXOP holder.
Hedayat ‘408 teaches, wherein obtaining a TXOP by the AP includes receiving a Reverse Direction Grant (RDG) from the non-AP STA as a TXOP holder([0132]-[0134] and Figs. 17-18, a nonAP STA acting as a TXOP -owner allowing a AP to take control over the TXOP that the STA initially obtained).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Wang ‘223, by incorporating the teaching of Hedayat ‘408, since such modification would provide an efficient and robust frame exchange between an AP and potential participating STAs, as suggested by Hedayat ‘408([0022]).
Claims 34, 41 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Aboul-Magd et al(US 2020/0281008 A1) hereinafter referred as Aboul ‘008.
Regarding claims 34, 41 and 49 the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein obtaining a TXOP by the AP includes obtaining a TXOP pre-emption interval.
Aboul ‘008 teaches, wherein obtaining a TXOP by the AP includes obtaining a TXOP pre-emption interval([0080]-[0085] and Figs . 2-3, AP obtaining preemption interval overlapping with the TXOP held by electronic device 102-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Wang ‘223, by incorporating the teaching of Aboul '008, since such modification would enable an access point (AP) to cause preemption of data transmission by a first wireless device over a wireless channel, to allow one or more other wireless devices to communicate over the wireless channel, as suggested by Aboul '008([0004]).
Claims 35, 39 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Di Taranto et al(US 2025/0008553 A1) hereinafter referred as Taranto ‘553
Regarding claims 35, 39 and 47 the combination of Wang ‘323 and Viger ‘763 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the LL indication is included in a Multi-Station Block Acknowledgement (Multi-STA BlockAck) frame transmitted by the non-AP STA.
Taranto ‘553 teaches, wherein the LL indication is included in a Multi-Station Block Acknowledgement (Multi-STA BlockAck) frame transmitted by the non-AP STA([0052], [0061], [0069] and Figs. 3-5, multi-STA Block ACK frame being used for LL indication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Wang ‘223, by incorporating the teaching of Taranto ‘553, since such modification would provide techniques which allows for improved support of low-latency data traffic in a wireless communication system, as suggested by Taranto ‘553([0010]-[0011]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
