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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-25 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§ 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 1, 4-8, 10, 12, 15-18, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al (US 2022/0330344 A1) in view of Kedem et al(WO 2022/099706 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lou ‘344 teaches, a method for low-latency (LL) traffic frame communication between WLAN (wireless local area network) devices ([0070]-[0072], [0084]-[0087] and Figs. 3 and 5, collision awareness random access for low traffic. Figs. 3 and 5 also shows WLAN AP and STAs communicating trigger-based frames), comprising: a membership group ([0048], [0094] and Figs. 3, 6, specific group of STAs that are identified by specific group identifier and that are allowed to respond to a trigger frame specifically for low latency transmissions) the membership group including at least an access point (AP) and a non-access point station (non-AP STA) ([0048], [0094] and Figs. 3, 6, membership/group that includes Ap and non-AP STA);
transmitting, by the AP, a trigger frame configured to allocate a random access resource unit (RA-RU) to the non-AP STA)([0072], [0073], [0075] and Fig. 3, 5 table 3, AP 303 transmitting trigger frame 304 to STAs 301, 302, the trigger frame comprising RA-RU for allocating random access resource), wherein the RA-RU is associated with the membership group and enables the non-AP STA to transmit low latency (LL) traffic information([0075], [0079]-[0082], [0094] table 3 and Fig. 3, an AP transmitting a trigger frame to multiple STAs to trigger random access. The AP indicates the specific group STAs to respond and specifies that the trigger is for low latency transmissions), and receiving, from the non-AP STA, an uplink LL traffic frame using the allocated RA-RU([0079]-[0082], [0094], [0097], [0121] and Figs. 3, 5, AP receiving triggered-based LL traffic (PPDUs) in RA-RU allocated by the AP).
Lou ‘344 does not explicitly teach, establishing a membership group for LL communications.
Kedem 706 teaches, establishing a membership group for LL communications (page 3 lines 5-12, page 4 lines 3-6, page 14 lines 11-15 and Figs. 2-3, an AP(first network device) determines group AIDs for groups of STAs (second network devices), This designed AID is specifically for grouping STAs sharing common link access characteristics such as low latency requirements).
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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Kedem ‘706, since such modification would provide medium link access privileges for clients with QoS requirements and to prioritize low latency sensitive traffic over other traffic, as suggested by Kedem ‘706(page 2, lines 18-23).
Regarding claims 4 and 23, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches, all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, announcing, by the AP, a periodic RA-RU allocation in a broadcast management frame ([0120], [0124] and Fig. 5, periodic uplink resource allocation transmitted by the AP).
Regarding claims 5 and 24, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches, all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, wherein establishing a membership group includes exchanging management frames ([0109]- [0113], [0121], [0124] and Fig. 5, discloses management/control frame exchanged between STA and AP including STA, association IDs(AID12), Fig. 5 step 508 AP sending scheduling frame to groups of STAs with corrupted transmission); and transmitting, by the non-AP STA, a LL traffic frame on the RA-RUs assigned to the membership group(Figs. 3, 5, STAs transmitting trigger-based frames on assigned RA-RUs) .
Regarding claims 6 and 25, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, transmitting, by the non-AP STA, an LL traffic frame by selecting the RA-RU without random backoff when the non-AP STA receives the trigger frame ([0079]- [0082], [0108]-[0112] and Figs. 3, 5, collision awareness procedures where STA when receiving scheduling/trigger info, directly retransmits in the allocated RA-RU by bypassing conventional backoff procedure).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, wherein the trigger frame is an Uplink OFDMA Random Access (UORA) Mode random access trigger frame (TF-R)([0073], [0076], [0078] and Fig. 5 step 502 UORA trigger frame).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, Lou ‘344 further teaches wherein the trigger frame is included in a MU PPDU downlink (DL) data frame ([0073] and Table 1, trigger frame carried in MU PPDU DL).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, wherein the non-AP STA holds a transmission opportunity (TXOP)([0098]-[0100], STA scheduled by AP holds TXOP). wherein the LL information includes a buffer status report frame including buffered LL traffic frames pending uplink ([0112] and Table 10, traffic info field includes BSR).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, wherein the non-AP STA holds a transmission opportunity (TXOP)([0098]-[0100], STA scheduled by AP holds TXOP).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, defining a new Uplink OFDMA Random Access (UORA) parameter set for LL traffic frame transmissions that differs from lagacy UORA parameter sets( [0079]-[0083], Modified UORA disclosed).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, defining a new Uplink OFDMA Random Access (UORA) backoff procedure for LL traffic frame transmissions that differs from legacy UORA backoff procedures([0079]-[0083], discloses collision-aware UORA backoff).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, wherein the new UORA backoff procedure prevents the non-AP STA from performing OFDMA random backoff, OFF-By-ONE(OBO ) count selection based on an (OCW), and OBO count decrement based on a number of the RA-RUs allocated([0090]-[0093], UORA backoff procedure being prevented by AP by rescheduling, which replaces OBO).
Regarding claim 18, Lou ‘344 teaches, all of the claim limitations, Lou ‘344 further teaches, polling, by the AP, to check if the non-AP STA has any buffered LL traffic by sending an NFRP (NDP Feedback Report Poll) trigger frame to the non-AP STA that is specific to LL traffic frame transmissions ([0076]- [0077], AP transmits in which the AP may indicate the feedback type is resource request).
Regarding claim 21, Lou ‘344 teaches, a method for low-latency (LL) traffic frame communication between WLAN (wireless local area network) devices ([0070]-[0072], [0084]-[0087] and Figs. 3 and 5, collision awareness random access for low traffic. Figs. 3 and 5 also shows WLAN AP and STAs communicating trigger-based frames), comprising:
membership group ([0048], [0094] and Figs. 3, 6, specific group of STAs that are identified by specific group identifier and that are allowed to respond to a trigger frame specifically for low latency transmissions),
the membership group including at least an access point (AP) and a non-access point station (non-AP STA) ([0048], [0094] and Figs. 3, 6, membership/group that includes Ap and non-AP STA); receiving, from the AP by the non-AP STA, a trigger frame configured to allocate a random access resource unit (RA-RU) to the non-AP STA)([0072], [0073], [0075] and Fig. 3, 5 table 3, STAs 301, 302 AP 303 receiving trigger frame 304 from AP, the trigger frame comprising RA-RU for allocating random access resource),
wherein the RA-RU is associated with the membership group and enables the non-AP STA to transmit low latency (LL) traffic information ([0075], [0079]-[0082], [0094] table 3 and Fig. 3, an AP transmitting a trigger frame to multiple STAs to trigger random access. The AP indicates the specific group STAs to respond and specifies that the trigger is for low latency transmissions); and transmitting, by the non-AP STA, an uplink LL traffic frame using the allocated RA-RU ([0079]- [0082], [0094] and Figs. 3, 5, STA transmitting to AP triggered-based LL traffic (PPDUs) in RA-RU allocated by the AP).
Lou ‘344 does not explicitly teach, establishing a membership group for LL communications.
Kedem 706 teaches, establishing a membership group for LL communications (page 3 lines 5-12, page 4 lines 3-6, page 14 lines 11-15 and Figs. 2-3, an AP(first network device) determines group AIDs for groups of STAs (second network devices), This designed AID is specifically for grouping STAs sharing common link access characteristics such as low latency requirements).
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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Kedem ‘706, since such modification would provide medium link access privileges for clients with QoS requirements and to prioritize low latency sensitive traffic over other traffic, as suggested by Kedem ‘706(page 2, lines 18-23).
Claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Nezou we al(US 2023/0413176 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches, all of the claim limitations except, wherein the RA-RU is configured to be used only for uplink LL traffic frame transmission
Nezou ‘176 teaches, wherein the RA-RU is configured to be used only for uplink LL traffic frame transmission ([0085]-[0086], resources allocated only for low latency traffic).
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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Nezou ‘176, since such modification would enable an AP to apply measures to guarantee timely LLRS traffic transmission while keeping implementation cost low and ensuring backward compatibility with legacy devices, as suggested by Nezou ‘176([0008]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches, all of the claim limitations except, wherein the allocated RA-RU is unavailable for non-LL traffic frames.
Nezou ‘176 teaches, wherein the allocated RA-RU is unavailable for non-LL traffic frames ([0085]- [0086], resources allocated only for low latency traffic, as the non low latency frames are not allowed).
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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Nezou ‘176, since such modification would enable an AP to apply measures to guarantee timely LLRS traffic transmission while keeping implementation cost low and ensuring backward compatibility with legacy devices, as suggested by Nezou ‘176([0008]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches, all of the claim limitations except, wherein the LL information includes an LL traffic frame.
Nezou ‘176 teaches, wherein the LL information includes an LL traffic frame ([0095]- [0102] and Fig. 7b, low latency traffic identification during TWT which is equivalent to LLI).
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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Nezou ‘176, since such modification would enable an AP to apply measures to guarantee timely LLRS traffic transmission while keeping implementation cost low and ensuring backward compatibility with legacy devices, as suggested by Nezou ‘176([0008]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the AP holds a transmission opportunity (TXOP).
Nezou ‘176 teaches, wherein the AP holds a transmission opportunity (TXOP)([0104], [0105], AP holds TXOP for LL traffic).
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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Nezou ‘176, since such modification would enable an AP to apply measures to guarantee timely LLRS traffic transmission while keeping implementation cost low and ensuring backward compatibility with legacy devices, as suggested by Nezou ‘176([0008]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations except, receiving, by the AP, an LL Indication (LLI) frame, , from the non-AP STA; and sending, by the AP, the trigger frame allocating the RA-RUs for the non-AP STA’s LL traffic frame transmissions in response to receiving the LLI frame.
Nezou ‘176 teaches, receiving an LL Indication (LLI) frame, by the AP, from the non-AP STA; and sending, by the AP, the trigger frame allocating the RA-RUs for the non-AP STA’s LL traffic frame transmissions in response to receiving the LLI frame ([0095]- [0100], AP receiving Low Latency indicator from STA and in response transmitting trigger frame).
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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Nezou ‘176, since such modification would enable an AP to apply measures to guarantee timely LLRS traffic transmission while keeping implementation cost low and ensuring backward compatibility with legacy devices, as suggested by Nezou ‘176([0008]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the non-AP STA is configured to send the LLI frame in response to receiving from the AP an LLI Allowance frame indicating that LLI frames are allowed.
Nezou ‘176 teaches, wherein the non-AP STA is configured to send the LLI frame in response to receiving from the AP an LLI Allowance frame indicating that LLI frames are allowed( [0104]-[0106] and Fig. 7b, AP advertises LL allowance in beacon/trigger and the STA responds with 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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Nezou ‘176, since such modification would enable an AP to apply measures to guarantee timely LLRS traffic transmission while keeping implementation cost low and ensuring backward compatibility with legacy devices, as suggested by Nezou ‘176([0008]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hedayat(US 2016/0100408 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 teaches all of the claim limitations Lou ‘344 except, receiving, by the AP, a Reverse Direction Grant (RDG) from the non-AP STA TXOP holder; andin response to the RDG, transmitting the trigger frame from the AP to allocate the RA-RU to a second non-AP STA for LL traffic frame transmission, wherein the second non-AP STA is part of the membership group.
Hedayat ‘408 teaches, receiving, by the AP, a Reverse Direction Grant (RDG) from the non-AP STA TXOP holder; and in response to the RDG([0134]- [0136], AP receiving from the TXOP owner STA RDG frame)., transmitting the trigger frame from the AP to allocate the RA-RU to a second non-AP STA for LL traffic frame transmission, wherein the second non-AP STA is part of the membership group([0120]-[0121], [0134]- [0136], AP transmitting trigger frame in response to receiving RDG from the TXOP owner, the trigger frame being used for allocating the TXOP to another STA within group)
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 Lou ‘344, by incorporating the teaching of Hedayat ‘408, since such modification would provide an efficient and robust frame exchange between the AP and potential participating STAs, as suggested by Hedayat ‘408 ([0022]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou ‘344 and Kedem ‘706 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Aboul-Magd et al (US 2020/0281008 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lou ‘344 teaches, all of the claim limitations except, wherein the AP has a TXOP preemption interval overlapping the TXOP held by the non-AP STA, further comprising: transmitting, by the AP, the trigger frame to allocate the RA-RU to a second non-AP STA for LL traffic frame transmission, wherein the second non-AP STA is part of the membership group.
Aboul ‘008 teaches, wherein the AP has a TXOP preemption interval overlapping the TXOP held by the non-AP STA ([0080]- [0085] and Figs. 2-3, AP 106 having preemption interval overlapping with the TXOP held by electronic device 102-1), further comprising:
transmitting, by the AP, the trigger frame [0080]- [0085] and Figs. 2-3, AP 106 sending trigger frame to electronic device 102-2 to allocate resource LL uplink data frame).
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 Lou ‘344, 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]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights