DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 2/10/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1-15.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see page 9, filed 5/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that all of the rejections have been overcome by the claim amendments. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in detail in the rejections below, many of the previous rejections have not been addressed or overcome by the amendments filed on 5/8/2026. In addition, the amendments have introduced additional indefiniteness as also indicated in detail in the rejections below.
Many of the rejections are quite involved. Except for cases where an amendment obviously overcomes a 112(b) rejection (such as correcting a lack of antecedent basis rejection), Examiner requests that Applicant clearly explain why the amendments are deemed to overcome the rejection. This will help expedite prosecution.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 5/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
However, further search and/or consideration will be required when the claims have been amended to address the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 17-18 of claim 1, “based on corrected traffic pattern” should be changed to “based on corrected a traffic pattern”.
The same change should also be made in claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12: the phrase “based on corrected traffic pattern determined by adjusting a reception time of the monitored downlink packets to the communication link level by compensating for a processing delay of the communication module and distinguishing a boundary of at least one TWT SP using a threshold time determined based on a gap between consecutive TWT SPs” in claim 1 (and the analogous limitation in claim 12) is unclear. For example, the scope of the phrase “adjusting a reception time of the monitored downlink packets to the communication link level” in context with the rest of the phrase is not clear. How is the reception time of a packet adjusted? The packet was received at a particular time and it is not clear how this time is adjusted as part of determining a “corrected traffic pattern”. Further, the intended scope/meaning of adjusting this reception time “to the communication link level” is not clear. What is meant by the “communication link level” and how is the reception time adjusted to this level?
Further, it is not clear what is meant by “distinguishing a boundary of at least one TWT SP using a threshold time determined based on a gap between consecutive TWT SPs”. What is the boundary of the TWT SP? A start time or end time of the SP? It is further unclear what is meant by “using a threshold time determined based on a gap between consecutive TWT SPs”. Is the threshold time configured? Measured? How does this threshold time “distinguish a boundary”?
Examiner requests that the claim be amended to more clearly indicate the intended scope of the above limitations.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: the phrases “adjust an initial reception time of the downlink packets to a reception time at the communication link level processed by the second processor by subtracting a processing and transmission time of the downlink packets by the second processor from the initial reception time” and “identify the corrected traffic pattern from the identified traffic pattern by estimating TWT SPs at the communication link level” in claim 2 (and the analogous limitation in claim 13) are unclear.
For example, how does the limitation “adjust an initial reception time” relate to the limitation “adjusting a reception time” in parent claims 1 and 12? Is this further modifying the limitation from the parent claims? Or is this a further adjustment? Further, is the “processing and transmission time of the downlink packets by the second processor” in claims 2 and 13 related to the “processing delay of the communication module” in claims 1 and 12?
The intended scope of phrase “identify the corrected traffic pattern from the identified traffic pattern by estimating TWT SPs at the communication link level” is also unclear. In claims 1 and 12, the “corrected traffic pattern” was “determined by adjusting a reception time…”. What does “identifying” this determined/corrected traffic pattern “from the identified traffic pattern” mean? Further, how does the limitation “estimating TWT SPs at the communication link level” differ or modify the “adjusting”, “compensating”, and “distinguishing” steps performed in claims 1 and 12 to “determine” the corrected traffic pattern?
Further, it is unclear how corrected traffic pattern in the phrase “identify the corrected traffic pattern from the identified traffic pattern by estimating TWT SPs at the communication link level” is utilized in the claim to identify the second TWT parameter used to renegotiate the TWT agreement. This phrase should be updated to clarify how this corrected (or updated) traffic pattern is utilized.
Regarding claim 3: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
In line 4, “a threshold” is unclear. It appears this should be “the threshold” unless a second threshold is intended.
The words “greater than” and “larger than” in lines 4 and 5 should be the same or else modified to clearly indicate the distinctions. The phrase used in these lines should also match the language used later in the claims (such as in line 10 of claim 3). See also other dependent claims (such as claims 6, 8, 14, and 15) that refer to this phrase.
The phrase “based on a first inter packet time being greater than the threshold time, designate the first inter packet time being larger than a threshold time for distinguishing a first TWT SP and a second TWT SP among the inter packet times for the downlink packets” is unclear. That is, what does it mean to “designate” a first inter packet time? Further, it is not clear what is meant by “distinguishing” a first and second TWT SP among inter packet times? That is, how are two service periods (SPs) distinguished “among” multiple inter packet times?
The connection between the various “TWT SPs” is unclear. How does the first TWT SP and the second TWT SP relate to the TWT SP in claim 1? How do the other TWT SPs (“one TWT SP”, “the TWT SP”) relate to these three TWT SPs?
The phrase “determine a first packet to a last packet at a time point at which a first condition in which the first inter packet time is larger than the threshold time is not satisfied as packets included in one TWT SP” is unclear. What does “determine a first packet to a last packet at a time point” mean? What does it mean to “determine…packets included in one TWT SP”? Which TWT SP? How does this relate to the renegotiating of the TWT agreement in claim 1?
The phrase “wherein the threshold time is a value obtained by subtracting a sum TWT SP and a preset first margin from a TWT interval time indicating all intervals before start of a next TWT SP from a time point at which one TWT SP starts” is unclear. What is meant by subtracting a sum of TWT SP and a preset first margin from a TWT interval time? How is a TWT SP added (summed) with a margin? Is this intended to be the length of the TWT SP? And what is the phrase “from a time point at which one TWT SP starts” relative to? Is this also subtracted from something?
Regarding claim 4: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
How does the phrase “adjust a time point at which the first processor receives the received packets to the reception time point of the communication link level by subtracting a time required for processing and receiving mac layer data and physical layer data and a time required for receiving payload data from the time point” (and “adjust the time point…” in line 10) relate to the “adjust an initial reception time…” limitation of claim 2? Are these the same?
Regarding claim 6: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
It is unclear if the “a first condition” is different or the same as the “a condition” in claim 3. If so, this phrase should be changed to “the first condition”.
How does the “time obtained by subtracting a previous packet time from a current packet time” differ from the various “inter packet times” in the parent claims?
Regarding claim 8: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
The phrase “increase a number of packets received at the inter packet time which does not satisfy the first condition and the second condition in a number of buffered packets (downlink (DL) buffered packet count) and a size of a packet of the next TWT SP” does not make sense. What is meant by increasing a number of packets at an inter packet time? What is meant by increasing packets in a number of buffered packets? How does the phrase “a size of a packet of the next TWT SP” relate to the rest of the phase? Is it also increased (“increase a number of packets received…and a size of a packet…”. Or are the number of packets increased “in” both the number of buffered packets and the packet size (“increase packets received…in a number of buffered packets…and a size of a packet”)?
Regarding claim 9: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
What is meant by a TWT SP that does not end?
How does “a size of a packet” relate to the “size of a packet” instances in parent claims?
Regarding claim 10: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
How does “a size of a packet” relate to the “size of a packet” instances in parent claims?
How does the estimated TWT SP (which in claim 1 appears to be “of a communication link level…”) differ from the estimated TWT SP of the communication link level? Further, how is this estimated TWT SP used to estimate the (same) TWT SP? That is, how is the TWT SP “of the TWT SP” estimated? What is a TWT SP of a TWT SP?
Regarding claim 11: the claim is unclear for at least the following reasons:
The phrase “size of a packet” appears on both line 6 and “a packet size” appears on line 9. How do these two packet sizes differ and/or relate to one another?
The phrase “a packet transmission/reception time from a TWT SP start time to a TWT SP last time point,” is unclear.
How is the “TWT usage characteristic information” integrated into the device and used in the renegotiation?
Regarding claims 14 and 15: the claims are unclear for reasons similar to those discussed in the analogous claims above.
Examiner Note: The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above do not necessarily cover all reasons the claims are indefinite. Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully reword all claim limitations to ensure consistency (removing any antecedent basis concerns) and to ensure the intended scope of the claims is clear. Examiner further recommends that Applicant provide detailed explanations (including references to the specification) for any limitations where Applicant does not agree with the rejection.
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 Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights