DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application #18490276 filed 10/19/2023. Claim(s) 1-29 is/are subject to examination.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The very first instance of UHR in paragraph 22 should be defined as “Ultra-High Reliability”.
The very first instance of TID in paragraph 7 should be defined.
The first instance of R-TWT in paragraph 9 should be defined as “Restricted Target Wake Time (R-TWT)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 “STA (station)” should be written as “station (STA)”.
Claim 7 “a periodicity of the the LL traffic” should be written as “a periodicity of the LL traffic” .
Claim 20 “RTS (request to send)” should be written as “request to send (RTS)”
Claim 20 “CTS (clear to send)” should be written as “clear to send (CTS)”
Claim 25 “A WLAN (wireless local area network)…non-AP STA (station)…” should be “A Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)…non-AP station (STA)…”
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 1-29 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “pre-empting, by the first WLAN device, a TXOP (transmission opportunity) of the second WLAN device”. It is unclear what is involved in pre-empting. In other words, it unclear whether pre-empting is the action of interrupting (i.e., low latency traffic pre-empts the non-low latency traffic) or the action of being interrupted (i.e., non-low latency traffic is pre-empted by low latency traffic). Additionally, it is unclear who is being interrupted or doing the interruption. In other words, it is unclear who is sending and receiving the low latency traffic. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation to mean: The TxOP of the second WLAN device containing/overlapping with LL traffic, interrupts other non-LL traffic in any other WLAN device. Claims 2-24 and 26-29 are rejected to as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “pre-empt a TXOP…of the non-AP STA for LL traffic…”. It is unclear what is involved in pre-empting. In other words, it unclear whether pre-empting is the action of interrupting (i.e., low latency traffic pre-empts the non-low latency traffic) or the action of being interrupted (i.e., non-low latency traffic is pre-empted by low latency traffic). Additionally, it is unclear who is being interrupted or doing the interruption. In other words, it is unclear who is sending and receiving the low latency traffic. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation to mean: The TxOP of the non-AP STA containing/overlapping with LL traffic, interrupts other non-LL traffic in any other device.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “AP”. It is indefinite what “AP” stands for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as: “access point (AP)”. Further mentions of AP will be considered to mean “access point”. Claims 9-24 and 26-29 are rejected as being depending on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the low latency (LL) traffic stream" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is rejected to as being dependent on claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a SCSID, a TID”. It is indefinite what “SCSID” or “TID” stands for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as: a SCS identifier (SCSID), a thread identifier (TID).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a particular TID or a particular SCSID”. It is indefinite what “SCSID” or “TID” stands for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as: a particular thread identifier (TID) or a particular SCS identifier (SCSID).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a PPDU…R-TWT SP…R-TWT…”. IT is indefinite what “PPDU”, “R-TWT” or “SP” stands for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as: physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU)…restricted target wake time (R-TWT) service period (SP)…
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the low latency (LL) traffic stream schedule" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the low latency (LL) traffic stream" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation “UL traffic”. It is indefinite what “UL” stand for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as: uplink (UL) traffic.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “R-TWT SP”. It is indefinite what “R-TWT SP” stands for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as: Restricted TWT SP (r-TWT).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the low latency (LL) traffic transmissions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as any low latency traffic.
Claims 15 and 16 recites the limitation “the TxOP holder preemption” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 and 22 recites the limitation “a UHR”. It is indefinite what “UHR” stands for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret it as: “a Ultra-High Reliability (UHR)”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the WLAN devices" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as: between any WLAN device.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the WLAN device’s" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as: any WLAN device.
Claim 26 and 29 recites the limitation "the TXOP preemption functionality". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 27 is rejected to as being dependent on claim 26.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “a QoS null frame” in line 2. It is indefinite what “QoS” stands for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as “a quality of service (QoS) null frame”
Claim 28 recites the limitation “an UHR variant HT control field” in line 3. It is indefinite what “UHR variant HT” stands for. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as: “a Ultra-High Reliability (UHR) variant High Throughput (HT) control field”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-13, 15-16, 23-26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CIOCHINA-KAR et al. (US 20230308943 A1), hereby referred to as KAR.
Claim 1:
KAR teaches a method of latency-sensitive traffic transmission for communications between a first WLAN (wireless local area network) device and a second WLAN device (KAR: para 65 (“Within a WLAN environment…”)), comprising: scheduling, by the first WLAN device a set of low latency (LL) traffic stream windows with the second WLAN device (KAR: FIG. 17 and para 76 (“…establishing low latency sensitive traffic stream (LLTS) sessions to inform about the low latency traffic stream characteristics and preemption parameters.”) wherein the first WLAN is the AP STA MAC); having LL traffic for transmission during at least one of the LL traffic stream windows (KAR: para 57 (“…the upper layers of the AP indicate the need to send high priority data to a different STA…the AP sends a new PPDU (herein also called preemtpive data unit or pPPDU) to pSTA.”) and para 73 (“…there is a high priority low latency traffic…than contained in the ongoing transmission…”) wherein there is LL traffic for a session/window); pre-empting, by the first WLAN device, a TXOP (transmission opportunity) of the second WLAN device if the at least one of the LL traffic stream windows overlaps with the second WLAN device’s TXOP (KAR: FIG. 7 the second WLAN being the pSTA and para 73 (“The truncation notification indicates that the ongoing transmission of a data unit shall be truncated, if truncation conditions are satisfied and a preemptive data unit shall be received from and/or transmitted to the third communication device….then decide to truncate the PPDU.”) wherein the second WLAN device has LL traffic stream overlapping/in its TxOP, and so then low latency priority data TxOP is prempted over other TxOPs); and transmitting, by the first WLAN device, the LL traffic during the TXOP of the second WLAN device that was pre-empted (KAR: FIG. 7 and FIG. 10 item 113 (“receive/transmit preemptive data unit”) wherein the first WLAN schedules LL traffic transmission).
Claim 2:
KAR teaches the method of claim 1: wherein the first WLAN device is an AP and the second WLAN device is a non-AP STA (station) (KAR: FIG. 6 wherein the first WLAN device is an AP and the second WLAN is a non-AP STA).
Claim 8:
KAR teaches the method of claim 1: wherein the low latency (LL) traffic stream schedule is periodic or aperiodic (KAR: para 79 (“The specific schedules and periodicity can be defined at the Low Latency Sensitive Traffic Stream (LLSTS or LLTS) setup.”) wherein LL traffic stream is scheduled as periodic or aperiodic).
Claim 9:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2: wherein the low latency (LL) traffic stream includes uplink (UL) traffic sent by the non-AP STA to the AP or downlink (DL) traffic sent by the AP to the non-AP STA (KAR: para 73 (“The truncation notification indicates that the ongoing transmission of a data unit shall be truncated, if truncation conditions are satisfied and a preemptive data unit shall be received from and/or transmitted to the third communication device….then decide to truncate the PPDU.”) wherein LL is either UL or DL).
Claim 10:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: allocating a non-random access resource unit (non-RA-RU) to the non-AP STA using a trigger frame (KAR: para 60 (“The pPPDU1 can be a Trigger Frame (TF)…comprising a start indication and basic RU/BW allocation is needed).”)); wherein the non-RA-RU enables the non-AP STA to transmit UL traffic (KAR: FIG. 7 and para 58 (…for uplink (UL) transmission from a pSTA…”) wherein the trigger frame allocates basic RU for ul transmission from a pSTA).
Claim 11:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: allocating a time period to the non-AP STA using a multi-user (MU) request-to-send (RTS) TXOP sharing (TXS) trigger frame (KAR: FIG. 14A-B and para 123 (“…when establishing a TxOP which truncation may be required (e.g., there are RTA STs with active sessions), this is done as a MU TXOP, with MU RTS indicating both the sSTas and pSTAs.”)wherein time period/TxOP is allocated using MU RTS trigger frame); wherein the MU-RTS-TXS trigger frame enables the non-AP STA to transmit UL traffic (KAR: FIG. 14A-B wherein PSTA transmits UL traffic).
Claim 12:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2: further comprising, preempting, by the AP, the TXOP of the non-AP STA during a target wake time service period (TWT SP) (KAR: para 82 (“…enables truncation only in specific time intervals…preemption parameters are exchanged and activated within specifically defined service periods…is a TWT SP.”) wherein preemption is during TWT SP).
Claim 13:
KAR teaches The method of claim 12: wherein the TWT SP may be either an individual TWT SP (KAR: para 82 (“…enables truncation only in specific time intervals, where pSTAs are known to be awake…preemption parameters are exchanged and activated within specifically defined service periods…between the AP and particular pSTAs…is a TWT SP.”) wherein preemption is during TWT SP such as individual TWT SP) or a broadcast TWT SP (KAR: para 79 (“…individual or broadcast target wake up times….”)).
Claim 15:
KAR teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the TXOP holder preemption during the TWT SP may be enabled or disabled as part of a negotiated TWT agreement established between a TWT requesting STA (or a TWT scheduled STA) and a TWT responding STA (or a TWT scheduling AP) (KAR: para 82 (“…preemption parameters are exchanged and activated within specifically defined service periods…TWT SP…”) wherein preemption is activated/allowed in TWT set up).
Claim 16:
KAR teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the TXOP holder preemption during the TWT SP may alternatively be enabled or disabled when a TWT scheduling AP announces TWT SP scheduling information (KAR: para 82 (“…preemption parameters are exchanged and activated within specifically defined service periods…TWT SP…”) wherein preemption is activated/allowed in an announced TWT set up).
Claim 23:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the AP grants permission to the non-AP STA to transmit the LL traffic within a TXOP not held by the non-AP STA (KAR: FIG. 14A-B and para 106 (“…for pSTA to be able to access the channel and send the pPPDU2 in the TXOP of sSTA…”) wherein AP uses eRTS to grant permission for the non-AP STA/pSTA to transmit LL traffic in sSTA’s TXOP); and wherein the non-AP STA is neither a current TXOP holder nor a current TXOP responder (KAR: FIG. 14A-B wherein non-AP STA is pSTA which is not the current TXOP holder or responder).
Claim 24:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the AP is granted permission to transmit the LL traffic as a current TXOP responder and the AP is not a current TXOP holder (KAR: FIG. 14A-B and para 106 (“…for pSTA to be able to access the channel and send the pPPDU2 in the TXOP of sSTA…”)wherein AP is currently a TXOP responder to the sSTA and gives permission to the pSTA).
Claim 25:
KAR teaches A WLAN (wireless local area network) access point (AP) device (KAR: FIG. 9 item (“AP”)), comprising: a controller configured to, schedule a set of low latency (LL) traffic stream windows with a non-AP STA (station) (KAR: FIG. 17 and para 76 (“…establishing low latency sensitive traffic stream (LLTS) sessions to inform about the low latency traffic stream characteristics and preemption parameters.”) wherein the first WLAN is the AP STA MAC); and pre-empt a TXOP (transmission opportunity) of the non-AP STA for LL traffic uplink (UL) or downlink (DL) (KAR: para 73 (“The truncation notification indicates that the ongoing transmission of a data unit shall be truncated, if truncation conditions are satisfied and a preemptive data unit shall be received from and/or transmitted to the third communication device….then decide to truncate the PPDU.”) wherein LL is either UL or DL), if the at least one of the LL traffic stream windows overlaps with the non-AP STA’s TXOP (KAR: FIG. 7 the second WLAN being the pSTA and para 73 (“The truncation notification indicates that the ongoing transmission of a data unit shall be truncated, if truncation conditions are satisfied and a preemptive data unit shall be received from and/or transmitted to the third communication device….then decide to truncate the PPDU.”) wherein low latency priority data TxOP is prempted over other TxOPs).
Claim 26:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the AP activates the TXOP preemption functionality after receiving a frame indicating TXOP preemption activation (KAR: FIG. 8 item “Req.”and para 85 (“A notification of low latency traffic with truncation capabilities may have been sent from the pSTA via a different link…by the request frame sent by the pSTA…”)the preemption activation frame which causes AP to activate preemption function).
Claim 29:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the AP activates the TXOP preemption functionality in response to the non-AP STA transmitting a request frame for activation of the TXOP preemption functionality (KAR: FIG. 8 item “Req.”and para 85 (“A notification of low latency traffic with truncation capabilities may have been sent from the pSTA via a different link…by the request frame sent by the pSTA…”)the preemption activation request frame causes AP to activate preemption function).
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAR in view of VIGER et al. (US 20250280442 A1), hereby referred to as VIGER.
Claim 3:
KAR teaches the method of claim 1: but does not explicitly disclose wherein the low latency (LL) traffic stream is created using a stream classification service (SCS) procedure that includes exchanging an SCS request frame and an SCS response frame.
VIGER, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the low latency (LL) traffic stream is created using a stream classification service (SCS) procedure (VIGER: para 104 (…take benefit of enhanced service provided by AP 110 that are related to low latency traffics…include the Stream Classification Service (SCS)…”)) that includes exchanging an SCS request frame and an SCS response frame (VIGER: FIG. 2item 221 the SCS request and item 222 the SCS response).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with VIGER for the benefit of better meeting various throughput, low latency, and robustness requirements (VIGER: para 2).
Claim 4:
KAR-VIGER teaches the method of claim 3: wherein the SCS procedure includes a quality of service characteristics element (VIGER: para 8 (“An adaptation of the SCS mechanism allows QoS requirements to be defined for the SCS stream through so-called QoS Characteristics element…”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with VIGER for the benefit of better meeting various throughput, low latency, and robustness requirements (VIGER: para 2).
Claim 5:
KAR-VIGER teaches the method of claim 3: wherein the SCS request frame or the SCS response frame includes at least one of: a SCSID (VIGER: FIG. 8 item 221 (“SCS Request (SCSID)”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with VIGER for the benefit of better meeting various throughput, low latency, and robustness requirements (VIGER: para 2).
Claim 6:
KAR-VIGER teaches the method of claim 3: wherein either the first or second WLAN devices are only allowed to transmit LL traffic associated with a particular TID (VIGER: para 154-156 (“…identifies TIDs as latency sensitive traffic for DL (respectively UL) directions, i.e. TIDs that are allowed in the rTWT defined by Restricted TWT element 500…The TIDs may be those defining SCS streams…”) wherein only LL traffic associated with a particular TID is allowed by the second WLAN device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with VIGER for the benefit of better meeting various throughput, low latency, and robustness requirements (VIGER: para 2).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAR in view of KISHIDA et al. (US 20260032717 A1), hereby referred to as KISHIDA.
Claim 14:
KAR teaches the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose wherein pre-empting the TXOP is enabled by giving a higher scheduling priority to the low latency (LL) traffic transmissions (KAR: para 73 (“The truncation notification may indicate that there is a high priority low latency traffic/traffic with higher priority than contained in the ongoing transmission during the ongoing transmit opportunity…”)), but does not explicitly disclose higher scheduling priority than to TWT requesting STAs transmissions or TWT scheduled STAs transmissions during the TWT SP.
KISHIDA, in the same field of endeavor, higher scheduling priority than to TWT requesting STAs transmissions or TWT scheduled STAs transmissions during the TWT SP (KISHIDA: para 38 (“…during the service period r-TWT-SP…low latency traffic is performed with priority over traffic exchange…which is not scheduled to exchange low-latency traffic…”) wherein other TWT scheduled transmissions have lower priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with KISHIDA for the benefit of prioritizing low latency traffic (KISHIDA: para 28).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAR in view of HEDAYAT et al. (US 20240129952 A1), hereby referred to as HEDAYAT.
Claim 17:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: announcing, by the AP, a TXOP preemption time period information in a broadcast management or action frame.
HEDAYAT, in the same field of endeavor, teaches announcing, by the AP, a TXOP preemption time period information in a broadcast management frame(HEDAYAT: para 77 (“…the periodicity of the preemption announcements may be configured….as a network parameter for the network provided by the AP wireless device…in a beacon frame…The preemption periodicity could be interpreted by beneficiary STAs as the period where the STA shall wake up and look for a new frame…”) the time period information being the preemption periodicity and the beacon frame being a broadcast management frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with HEDAYAT, for the benefit of preventing performance degradation for low latency traffic (HEDAYAT: para 4).
Claim 18:
KAR-HEDAYAT teaches the method of claim 17: wherein the announcement informs various non-AP STAs that a set of LL traffic pre-emption time periods have been defined (HEDAYAT: para 77 (“…the periodicity of the preemption annoucments may be configured….as a network parameter for the network provided by the AP wireless device…in a beacon frame…The preemption periodicity could be interpreted by beneficiary STAs as the period where the STA shall wake up and look for a new frame…”) wherein the preemption periodicity is the defined set of LL traffic pre-emption time periods and the beacon frame is the announcement); and wherein the announcement informs the various non-AP STAs that any non-AP STA holding a TXOP during a time overlapping any one of these time periods may have their traffic pre-empted (HEDAYAT: para 77 (“…The preemption periodicity could be interpreted by beneficiary STAs as the period where the STA shall wake up and look for a new frame…and, if detected, to process the received frame…Once the transmission preemption is announced, the AP wireless device may stop the transmission of the remainder of the first data transmission. The recipient of the first data transmission may correspondingly stop processing the first data transmission.”) where the transmission to any non-AP STAs which overlapped by the time period will be pre-empted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with HEDAYAT, for the benefit of preventing performance degradation for low latency traffic (HEDAYAT: para 4).
Claim 19:
KAR-HEDAYAT teaches The method of claim 17: wherein the AP transmits the announcement in either a broadcast management frame or a beacon frame (HEDAYAT: para 77 (“…the periodicity of the preemption announcements may be configured….as a network parameter for the network provided by the AP wireless device…in a beacon frame…The preemption periodicity could be interpreted by beneficiary STAs as the period where the STA shall wake up and look for a new frame…”) wherein the beacon frame is also a broadcast management frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with HEDAYAT, for the benefit of preventing performance degradation for low latency traffic (HEDAYAT: para 4).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAR in view of KIM et al. (US 20250254729 A1), hereby referred to as KIM.
Claim 21:
KAR teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the TXOP preemption functionality is indicated in a UHR operation or a UHR capabilities element during an association procedure between the WLAN devices.
KIM, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the TXOP preemption functionality is indicated in a UHR operation or a UHR capabilities element during an association procedure between the WLAN devices (KIM: para 143 (“…when the first indication is set to 0, the other STA may transmit a frame (e.g., a frame shorter than a pre-defined length) during the transmission of OBSS frame 1306. In an embodiment, STA 1304 may set the first indication to 1 when pre-emption of OBSS frame 1306 by another STA is not allowed.”) and para 144 (“…OBSS frame 1305 may comprise an Ultra High Reliability (UHR)…”) wherein preemption functionality is indicated in a UHR operation/element between two WLAN device) (see 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with KIM for the benefit of quickly identifying traffic (KIM: para 186).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAR in view of HUANG et al. (US 20240357656 A1), hereby referred to as HUANG.
Claim 27:
KAR teaches the method of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the frame indicating TXOP preemption activation is at least one of a separate control frame or an action frame.
HUANG, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the frame indicating TXOP preemption activation is at least one of a separate control frame or an action frame (HUANG: para 251 (“…STA1…sends a specific frame sequence…to preempt a channel on link 1…an NDPA frame and a NDP frame…a CTS-to-self frame, a QoS-null frame…”) wherein control frames or action frames are used to activate preemption).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KAR with HUANG for the benefit of increased data transmission throughput and reduce latency (HUANG: para 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 20, 22, and 28 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CANPOLAT et al. (US 20220330277 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/SHARMIN CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416