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, see Remarks, filed on 01/08/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections of claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment filed on 01/08/2026. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections of claims 1 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 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 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 1-21 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the claims recite “…the DSR frame includes a medium time request subfield that indicates a medium time for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first WLAN device”, but however, the original specification only discloses the DSR frame including the medium time request subfield. For instance, the instant specification discloses on paragraphs [76, 82-85] as follows:
[0076] An AP that receives the QoS Null frame including the DSR control field indicating the direct link may transmit an MU-RTS TXS trigger frame (or other control frame) to allocate a time period to the non-AP STA to use the direct link communication with its peer STA.
[0082] FIG. 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F represents a third example 600 of a set of DSR control field 602, 604, 606, 608, 610, 612 in a DSR frame for reporting on buffered low-latency (LL) frames. In this example 600, the DSR control field 602, 604, 606, 608, 610, 612 from a non-AP STA include a medium time request subfield.
[0083] The medium time request subfield requests a medium time whose delay bound are not more than an urgent delay bound+HOL Delay bound, with granularity defined by Delay bound Factor if a Request Type indicates the request of medium time.
[0084] In some example embodiments, the medium time request includes a one-bit granularity subfield medium time info field. For example, the Granularity subfield can indicate two granularities, 128 us and 512 us. If the granularity is under 128 us, then the request medium time is from 32 us to 2048 us. If the granularity is under 512 us, then the request medium time is from 128 us to 8096 us. A BW (bandwidth) subfield indicates a bandwidth under which medium time is requested, (e.g. 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz, 320 MHz).
[0085] When medium time or buffer status request use a same Control ID value, then the Request Type can indicate whether the medium time or buffer status is carried in the HE Control field. However, when the buffer status request and the medium time request use the separate Control ID values, then the request type field is not needed.
Therefore, the original specification merely discloses the DSR frame including the medium time request subfield, but however has not specified that the medium time request subfield indicating the medium time for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first WLAN device. At best, the original specification only discloses the AP (first WLAN device) allocates the time period to the non-AP STA for its direct link communication, not for communication to the AP. Thus, the original specification has failed to provide written description of the medium time for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first WLAN device
Accordingly, the claims 1 and 21 have failed to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 2-20 which depended on claim 1 are also rejected since they are depended upon rejected claims set forth above.
If this is an oversight by the Examiner, Applicant is respectfully requested to point out where in the specification this feature can be found. For the examination purpose, the claim's limitations are interpreted as best understood.
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 14, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0225323 A1 to Wang et al. (hereafter refers as Wang) in view of US 2024/0114380 A1 to Cheng et al. (hereafter refers as Cheng).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of low-latency (LL) frame management for communications between a first WLAN (wireless local area network) device and a second WLAN device (method of low latency frame management for communication between a first WLAN, i.e. AP, and a second WLAN, i.e. STA, Fig. 4 and paragraphs [28, 50-52, 101-102]), comprising:
transmitting, by the first WLAN device (i.e. AP, Fig. 4 and paragraphs [101-102]), a low-latency (LL) specific delay status report (DSR) trigger frame to the second WLAN device (the AP transmits to the STA, a poll message, including a NFRP frame, to request for status report for data satisfying a delay requirement, from the STA, paragraphs [104-107], wherein the poll message/NFRP frame specifying a low latency requirement for responding, paragraphs [104-108, 110] and Fig. 4, step 408); and
receiving, by the first WLAN, a DSR frame from the second WLAN device in response to the LL specific DSR trigger frame (the AP receives, from the STA, a response frame/a resource request frame, if it satisfies the low latency requirement indicated in the NFRP frame, paragraphs [92, 109-110, 116-118] and Fig. 4, step 412), wherein the DSR frame includes a medium request subfield that indicate a medium for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first WLAN device (wherein the DSR frame (resource request frame), includes a resource request subfield specifying resource(s) needed to transmit one or more LL frames to the AP over a medium, paragraphs [108-112]).
However, Wang does not explicitly teach that the medium is a medium “time”.
Cheng teaches receiving, by a first device, a DSR frame from a second device (a base station receives from a UE, a DSR frame for requesting transmitting of data to the base station, abstract and paragraphs [69-71, 77] and provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9), wherein the DSR frame includes a medium time request subfield that indicates a medium time for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first device (the DSR frame includes a timing information specifying a timing that the UE intended to transmit data to the base station, and in response, the base station allocate resources for the UE to perform UL transmission(s), paragraphs [69-71,77-78], provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9, wherein the data includes low latency communications, paragraphs [47, 62, 68], provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of receiving, by the first device, the DSR frame from the second device, wherein the DSR frame includes the medium time request subfield that indicates a medium time for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first device as taught by Cheng, with the teachings of the medium request subfield taught by Wang, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication between the first WLAN device and the second WLAN device by clearly specifying the time resource for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first WLAN device (See Cheng, paragraphs [69-71, 77-78], provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9).
Regarding claim 2, Wang further teaches wherein the first WLAN device is an AP (access point) and the second WLAN device is a non-AP STA (station) (wherein the AP is configured to transmit the poll message/NFRP frame, Fig. 4, steps 408-414).
Regarding claim 4, Wang further teaches wherein the LL specific DSR trigger frame is a modified NFRP (NDP Feedback Report Poll) trigger frame (wherein the trigger frame is a variation of NFRP frame with an indication of the type of traffic being polled, paragraphs [86, 89, 105-107]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang further teaches wherein the NFRP trigger frame includes an AID 12 subfield set to a specific value or to an AID of the non-AP STA (wherein the NFRP trigger frame includes an AID 12 subfield specifying a value of 12, paragraphs [82-83], or an AID of the STA, paragraphs [5, 7, 94-95, 104-105]); and
wherein if the non-AP STA has buffered LL frames, then the non-AP STA is configured set the DSR frame to true in response to the AID12 subfield set to the specific value or set to the AID of the non-AP STA (wherein if the STA has buffered low latency frames, then the STA is configured to send the response frame in response to the AID 12 subfield specifying a value of 12 or AID of the STA, paragraphs [107, 109-111]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wang and Cheng further teaches wherein the DSR frame includes a DSR control field for reporting information regarding buffered LL frames of the second WLAN device (wherein the DSR frame includes a DSR control field including information of buffered LL frames of UE, see Wang, paragraphs [67, 86, 87], Cheng, paragraphs [64-67, 69], provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wang and Cheng further teaches wherein the DSR control field includes a medium time request subfield (wherein the DSR frame includes the control field specifying the medium resource request subfield, see Wang, paragraphs [108-112], wherein the resource including time resource, see Cheng, paragraphs [69-71,77-78], provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches an access point (AP) configured to communicate over a WLAN (wireless local area network) network (an AP for communicate over a WLAN, paragraphs [28, 50-52, 101-102] and Fig. 4), comprising:
a controller (the AP includes a processor for perform a method, paragraph [126]) configured to transmit a low-latency (LL) specific delay status report (DSR) trigger frame requesting a DSR frame from a non-AP STA over the WLAN network (the AP with the processor, transmits to a STA over the WLAN network, a poll message, including a NFRP frame, to request for a status report for data satisfying a delay requirement, from the STA, paragraphs [104-107], wherein the poll message/NFRP frame specifying a low latency requirement for responding, paragraphs [104-108, 110] and Fig. 4, step 408); and
wherein the controller is further configured to receive the DSR frame from the non-AP STA (the AP with the processor receives, from the STA, a response frame/a resource request frame, if it satisfies the low latency requirement indicated in the NFRP frame, paragraphs [109-110, 116-118]), wherein the DSR frame includes a medium request subfield that indicate a medium for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first WLAN device (wherein the DSR frame (resource request frame), includes a resource request subfield specifying resource(s) needed to transmit one or more LL frames to the AP over a medium, paragraphs [108-112]).
However, Wang does not explicitly teach that the medium is a medium “time”.
Cheng teaches an access point (AP) (a base station, paragraphs [30]), comprising:
a controller (the base station includes a processor for perform a method, paragraphs [26, 40-41]) configured to receive a DSR frame from the non-AP STA (receives, from a STA/UE, a DSR frame for requesting transmitting of data to the base station, abstract and paragraphs [69-71, 77] and provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9), wherein the DSR frame includes a medium time request subfield that indicates a medium time for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first device (the DSR frame includes a timing information specifying a timing that the UE intended to transmit data to the base station, and in response, the base station allocate resources for the UE to perform UL transmission(s), paragraphs [69-71,77-78], provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9, wherein the data includes low latency communications, paragraphs [47, 62, 68], provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the DSR frame includes the medium time request subfield that indicates a medium time for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first device as taught by Cheng, with the teachings of the medium request subfield taught by Wang, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication between the first WLAN device and the second WLAN device by clearly specifying the time resource for transmitting one or more LL frames to the first WLAN device (See Cheng, paragraphs [69-71, 77-78], provisional 63/377,551, pages 7-9).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0225323 A1 to Wang et al. (hereafter refers as Wang) in view of US 2024/0114380 A1 to Cheng et al. (hereafter refers as Cheng) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2023/0104446 A1 to Ajami et al. (hereafter refers as Ajami).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the second WLAN device is a non-AP STA configured for “direct peer-to-peer (P2P) communication with another non-AP STA”.
Ajami teaches a method of low-latency (LL) frame management for communications between a first WLAN (wireless local area network) device and a second WLAN device (method of low latency frame management for communication between an AP, and a second WLAN, i.e. a low-latency STA, Fig. 7 and paragraphs [98-101]), comprising:
transmitting, by the first WLAN device (i.e. AP, Fig. 7-8), a low-latency (LL) specific delay status report (DSR) trigger frame to the second WLAN device (the AP transmits to the low-latency STA, a poll message/trigger frame, i.e. BSRP trigger frame, to request for status report for low-latency data, from the low-latency STA, paragraphs [102-103]); and
receiving, by the AP, a DSR frame from the second WLAN device in response to the LL specific DSR trigger frame (the AP receives, from the low-latency STA, a response frame indicating amount of UL data buffered by the low-latency STA, paragraphs [102-104]),
wherein the second WLAN device is a non-AP STA configured for direct peer-to-peer (P2P) communication with another non-AP STA (wherein the low-latency STA is a non-AP STA, Fig. 7-8 and paragraphs [102-104], configured for peer-to-peer communication with another STA, paragraphs [104-105] and Fig. 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the second WLAN device is a non-AP STA configured for direct peer-to-peer (P2P) communication with another non-AP STA as taught by Ajami, with the teachings of the second WLAN device as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of increase functionality of the second WLAN device by allow it to also communicate with other non-AP STA while response to the trigger frame from the AP (See Ajami, paragraphs [100-105] and Fig. 7-10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0225323 A1 to Wang et al. (hereafter refers as Wang) in view of US 2024/0114380 A1 to Cheng et al. (hereafter refers as Cheng) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2011/0085566 A1 to Bucknell et al. (hereafter refers as Bucknell).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the non-AP STA is configured to include “an indication whether a HOL (head of line) packet enqueue time exceeds or does not exceed a certain threshold time” in the DSR frame.
Bucknell teaches a non-AP STA is configured to include an indication whether a HOL (head of line) packet enqueue time exceeds or does not exceed a certain threshold time in a DSR frame (a station transmits a buffer status report, which including an indication of whether an age of an oldest packet is above a threshold, paragraphs [23-27] and claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of non-AP STA is configured to include an indication whether a HOL (head of line) packet enqueue time exceeds or does not exceed a certain threshold time in a DSR frame as taught by Bucknell, with the teachings of the DSR frame as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of increase efficiency for identifying the enqueue time of the HOL packet and whether the HOL packet enqueue time exceeds the threshold time, thus allowing the AP to schedule resource accordingly (See Bucknell, paragraphs [23-27] and claim 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0225323 A1 to Wang et al. (hereafter refers as Wang) in view of US 2024/0114380 A1 to Cheng et al. (hereafter refers as Cheng) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2025/0261038 A1 to Yang et al. (hereafter refers as Yang).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the non-AP STA is configured to include “an indication whether a HOL (head of line) packet expiration time is less than or larger than a certain threshold” in the DSR frame.
Yang teaches a non-AP STA is configured to include an indication whether a HOL (head of line) packet expiration time is less than or larger than a certain threshold in a DSR frame (UE transmits a status report including an indication of whether a remaining time duration of the oldest data burst to be transmitted is below a specific time threshold, paragraphs [18, 124, 127, 157, 162], see provisional 63/422,288, paragraphs [21, 22, 40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the non-AP STA is configured to include an indication whether a HOL (head of line) packet expiration time is less than or larger than a certain threshold in a DSR frame as taught by Yang, with the teachings of the DSR frame as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of increase efficiency for identifying whether the HOL (head of line) packet expiration time is less than or larger than a certain threshold, thus allowing the AP to schedule resource accordingly (See Yang, paragraphs [18, 124, 127, 157, 162], see provisional 63/422,288, paragraphs [21, 22, 40]).
Claims 8-11, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0225323 A1 to Wang et al. (hereafter refers as Wang) in view of US 2024/0114380 A1 to Cheng et al. (hereafter refers as Cheng) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2024/0430740 A1 to Lu et al. (hereafter refers as Lu).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the LL specific DSR trigger frame is “a BSRP (Buffer Status Report Poll)” trigger frame.
Lu teaches a method of low-latency (LL) frame management for communications between a first WLAN (wireless local area network) device and a second WLAN device (method of low latency/delay sensitive/urgency frame management for communication between an AP, and a second WLAN, i.e. a low-latency STA , Fig. 12-13), comprising:
transmitting, by the first WLAN device (i.e. AP, Fig. 12-13), a low-latency (LL) specific delay status report (DSR) trigger frame to the second WLAN device (the AP transmits to a non-AP STA, a poll message/trigger frame, i.e. BSRP trigger frame, to request for status report for low-latency/delay sensitive data, from the non-AP STA, paragraphs [217-218] and Fig. 12, U-BSRP trigger frame); and
receiving, by the AP, a DSR frame from the second WLAN device in response to the LL specific DSR trigger frame (the AP receives, from the low-latency STA, a response frame indicating buffer status of the low-latency/delay sensitive data that meet an urgency requirement in the BSRP trigger frame, paragraphs [217-218, 220, 222]),
wherein the LL specific DSR trigger frame is a BSRP (Buffer Status Report Poll) trigger frame (wherein the trigger frame is a BSRP trigger frame, paragraphs [217-218]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the LL specific DSR trigger frame is a BSRP (Buffer Status Report Poll) trigger frame as taught by Lu, with the teachings of the DSR trigger frame as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of increase flexibility for the teachings by allowing the teachings to adopt other by of trigger frame, i.e. BSRP trigger frame, to poll the buffer status of specific low-latency data (See Lu, paragraphs [217-218]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wang, Cheng and Lu further teaches wherein the non-AP STA is configured to indicate a presence of buffered LL frames in the DSR frame (the non-AP STA also includes an indication of a presence of buffered LL frames in the response frame, see Wang, paragraphs [93, 114-115], see Lu, paragraphs [217, 227-230]); and
wherein the AP is configured to allocate a set of resource units (RUs) to the non-AP STA for transmission of the buffered LL frames (the AP allocates a set of RUs to the station for transmision of the buffered LL frames, see Lu, paragraphs [83, 86, 91], see Wang, paragraph [111]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wang, Cheng and Lu further teaches wherein the BSRP trigger frame includes a subfield indicating a poll of delay status report for prompting the non-AP STA to indicate the presence of buffered LL frames (wherein the trigger frame includes a subfield/field indicating a poll for status report of particular delay sensitive/low latency data from the non-AP STA, see Lu, paragraphs [95, 139-140, 144, 147], see Wang, paragraphs [85, 108, 114]).
Regarding claim 11, Lu further teaches wherein the BSRP trigger frame includes a subfield indicating a direction of a traffic stream for prompting the non-AP STA to indicate a direction of the buffered LL frames (the trigger frame includes a subfield indicating a direction of traffic stream prompting the STA to indicate a direction, see Lu, paragraphs [83, 128, 215, 252, 350]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the BSRP trigger frame includes a subfield indicating a direction of a traffic stream for prompting the non-AP STA to indicate a direction of the buffered LL frames as taught by Lu, with the teachings of the DSR trigger frame as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of increase efficiency for trigger frame by request additional information such as the direction of the traffic stream (See Lu, paragraphs [83, 128, 215, 252, 350]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the DSR control field includes “an indication of a direction of a traffic stream associated with reported delay status information”.
Lu teaches wherein the DSR control field includes an indication of a direction of a traffic stream associated with reported delay status information (wherein the DSR control field includes a subfield indicating a direction of traffic stream associated with the reported delay status, see Lu, paragraphs [83, 215, 218]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the DSR control field includes an indication of a direction of a traffic stream associated with reported delay status information as taught by Lu, with the teachings of the DSR frame as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of providing the additional information for the buffered low-latency frame by including the DSR control field in the DSR frame (See Lu, paragraphs [68, 70, 74, 103-104, 119-121]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the DSR control field includes “a set of delay bound subfields”.
Lu teaches wherein the DSR control field includes a set of delay bound subfields (the control filed includes a set of delay bound subfields, paragraphs [83, 96, 128-129, 200-203, 215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DSR control field includes a set of delay bound subfields as taught by Lu, with the teachings of the DSR frame as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of providing the additional information for the buffered low-latency frame by including the set of delay bound subfields (See Lu, paragraphs [83, 96, 128-129, 200-203, 215]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the DSR control field includes “an urgent delay bound”.
Lu teaches wherein the DSR control field includes an urgent delay bound (the control filed includes a delay bound for urgent/delay sensitive, paragraphs [83, 121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DSR control field includes an urgent delay bound as taught by Lu, with the teachings of the DSR frame as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of providing the additional information for the buffered low-latency frame by including urgent delay bound (See Lu, paragraphs [83, 121]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0225323 A1 to Wang et al. (hereafter refers as Wang) in view of US 2024/0114380 A1 to Cheng et al. (hereafter refers as Cheng) and US 2024/0430740 A1 to Lu et al. (hereafter refers as Lu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2024/0090010 A1 to Ajami et al. (hereafter refers as Ajami’010).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wang, Cheng and Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the DSR frame from the non-AP STA includes “a QoS (quality of service) Null frame; and wherein the QoS Null frame includes delay status information on the buffered LL frames”.
Ajami’010 teaches the DSR frame from the non-AP STA includes a QoS (quality of service) Null frame (a delay status report/response frame from a STA includes a QoS null frame, paragraph [52]) and wherein the QoS Null frame includes delay status information on the buffered LL frames (wherein the QoS Null frame includes a delay status information on the buffered low latency frames, paragraphs [51-60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DSR frame from the non-AP STA includes a QoS (quality of service) Null frame; and wherein the QoS Null frame includes delay status information on the buffered LL frames as taught by Ajami’010, with the teachings of the DSR trigger frame as taught by combination of Wang, Cheng and Lu, for a purpose of providing additional information such as delay status information on the buffered LL frames, by using the QoS Null frame includes delay status information (See Ajami’010, paragraphs [51-60]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wang, Cheng and Lu does not explicitly teach “wherein the QoS null frame includes at least one of: a traffic identifier (TID); a head of line (HOL) packet delay; or a queue size of the TID”.
Ajami’010 teaches an QoS null frame (the delay status report is transmitted in a QoS null frame, paragraph [52]) includes at least one of: a traffic identifier (TID) (wherein the delay status report includes a packet/flow identifier, paragraph [45]); a head of line (HOL) packet delay (a HOL delay, paragraph [62]); or a queue size of the TID (the size of queue to be transmitted, paragraph [45]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DSR frame from the non-AP STA includes a QoS (quality of service) Null frame; and wherein the QoS Null frame includes delay status information on the buffered LL frames as taught by Ajami’010, with the teachings of the DSR trigger frame as taught by combination of Wang, Cheng and Lu, for a purpose of providing additional information such as delay status information on the buffered LL frames, by using the QoS Null frame includes delay status information, while including at least one of: a traffic identifier (TID); a head of line (HOL) packet delay; or a queue size of the TID (See Ajami’010, paragraphs [45, 51-60, 62]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0225323 A1 to Wang et al. (hereafter refers as Wang) in view of US 2024/0114380 A1 to Cheng et al. (hereafter refers as Cheng) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2024/0090010 A1 to Ajami et al. (hereafter refers as Ajami’010).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the DSR control field is “embedded in a QoS (quality of service) Null frame”.
Ajami’010 teaches wherein the set of DSR control field is embedded in a QoS (quality of service) Null frame (a delay status report/response frame from a STA includes a control field, paragraphs [46, 53], wherein the delay status report is in a QoS null frame, paragraph [52])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the set of DSR control field is embedded in a QoS (quality of service) Null frame as taught by Ajami’010, with the teachings of the DSR control filed as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of increase compatibility of the teachings by allowing the teachings to adopt the QoS null frame to transmit the DSR control field (See Ajami’010, paragraphs [51-60]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0225323 A1 to Wang et al. (hereafter refers as Wang) and in view of US 2024/0114380 A1 to Cheng et al. (hereafter refers as Cheng) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2023/0117842 A1 to Xin et al. (hereafter refers as Xin).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wang and Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the DSR frame includes a control field for indicating whether the non-AP STA’s buffered LL frames “are uplink (UL) frame or direct/P2P link frames”.
Xin teaches a DSR frame includes a control field for indicating whether the non-AP STA’s buffered LL frames are uplink (UL) frame or direct/P2P link frames (a traffic direction field indicates direction of the traffic, i.e. indicating UL or P2P frame/traffic, paragraph [100], wherein the traffic/frame is a non-AP STA’s buffered low latency frames, paragraphs [56, 80, 104, 124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of a DSR frame includes a control field for indicating whether the non-AP STA’s buffered LL frames are uplink (UL) frame or direct/P2P link frames as taught by Xin, with the teachings of the DSR frame includes a control field as taught by combination of Wang and Cheng, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication between the AP and the non-AP STA by clearly specifying whether the buffered LL frames are UL frame or direct/P2P link frames (See Xin, paragraphs [56, 80, 100, 104, 124]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0129906 A1 discloses an TXOP duration requested subfield specifying a duration that the sending STA determines it needs for its next TXOP for a specified traffic identifier (paragraphs [76-77]).
US 2023/0308938 A1 discloses an AP transmits a low latency BSRP trigger frame and receives a BSR response from a STA (see paragraphs [166-167]).
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 DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Ian N. Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 March 7, 2026