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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 5, 6 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. Specifically, the claim recites “wherein reception of the control signal during transmission of the first signal is facilitated by the control signal having a data rate that is less than a data rate threshold”, which is indefinite as it is unclear what degree of facilitation or enablement would constitute the claimed reception being ‘facilitated’. Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xin et al. (US 2023/0081745).
For claim 1, Xin teaches: A first wireless device, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to (see at least 0047, fig. 2, STAs may comprise processor/memory for communication):
transmit a first signal from the first wireless device during operation of the first wireless device in a full duplex mode, wherein operation in the full duplex mode includes a capability to simultaneously operate in a transmit mode and a receive mode (see at least 0005, 0095, STAs may support full duplex transmission. See at least 0167, fig. 22, a preempted STA A may be transmitting a signal);
receive, during transmission of the first signal, a control signal that is indicative that a priority signal is intended for the first wireless device (see at least 0167, fig. 22, STA A may receive a preemption request e.g. RTS from another STA B, indicating a preemption (high priority, see 0149) signal; see at least 0130, the preempted STA may be the intended receiver of the preemption transmission (RTS comprises well known fields e.g. receiver address)); and
receive the priority signal after a transition of the first wireless device from operation in the full duplex mode to operation in the receive mode, wherein the transition is based at least in part on reception of the control signal (see at least 0171, fig. 22, STA A may interrupt its transmission and indicate STA B may transmit the preemption signal; see at least 0130, the preempted STA may be the intended receiver of the preemption transmission, thus STA A may switch to receive mode to receive the preemption signal).
For claim 2, Xin teaches claim 1, Xin further teaches: wherein the control signal is a waveform, a sequence, or a reference signal that, upon reception, is indicative that the priority signal is intended for the first wireless device (see at least 0167, fig. 22, STA A may receive a preemption request e.g. RTS from another STA B, comprising some form of signal sequence).
For claim 3, Xin teaches claim 2, Xin further teaches: wherein the waveform, the sequence, or the reference signal are each part of a set of waveforms, a set of sequences, or a set of reference signals, respectively, and wherein each of the set of waveforms, the set of sequences, or the set of reference signals is associated with indication of priority signaling (see at least 0253, fig. 31, a preemption request format may comprise a priority field indicating priority of the requested preempting transmission; thus any given preemption request is an instance of request signaling that indicates a signal priority).
For claim 12, Xin teaches claim 1, Xin further teaches: wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: transmit a termination signal based at least in part on reception of the control signal, wherein the termination signal indicates a termination of transmission of the first signal (see at least 0171, fig. 22, after accepting the preemption request, STA A may transmit DTX confirmation signal and SU-trigger to indicate its transmission interruption and launch the preemption transmission).
For claim 13, Xin teaches claim 12, Xin further teaches: wherein reception of the priority signal is based at least in part on transmission of the termination signal (see at least 0171, fig. 22, after accepting the preemption request, STA A may transmit DTX confirmation signal and SU-trigger to indicate its transmission interruption and launch the preemption transmission).
For claim 14, Xin teaches: A second wireless device, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second wireless device to (see at least 0047, fig. 2, STAs may comprise processor/memory for communication):
transmit a control signal to a first wireless device during operation of the first wireless device in a full duplex mode and during transmission, by the first wireless device, of a first signal, wherein the control signal is indicative that a priority signal is intended for the first wireless device (see at least 0005, 0095, STAs may support full duplex transmission. See at least 0167, fig. 22, a preempted STA A may be transmitting a signal. See at least 0167, fig. 22, STA A may receive a preemption request e.g. RTS from another STA B, indicating a preemption (high priority, see 0149) signal; see at least 0130, the preempted STA may be the intended receiver of the preemption transmission (RTS comprises well known fields e.g. receiver address)); and
transmit the priority signal to the first wireless device based at least in part on determining that an operational mode of the first wireless device is a receive mode based at least in part on transmission of the control signal (see at least 0171, fig. 22, STA A may interrupt its transmission and indicate STA B may transmit the preemption signal; see at least 0130, the preempted STA may be the intended receiver of the preemption transmission, thus STA A may switch to receive mode to receive the preemption signal).
Claim 16 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
For claim 17, Xin teaches claim 16, Xin further teaches: wherein the waveform, the sequence, or the reference signal are each part of a set of waveforms, a set of sequences, or a set of reference signals, respectively, and wherein each of the set of waveforms, the set of sequences, or the set of reference signals is associated with indication of priority signaling on a per device basis (see at least 0253, fig. 31, a preemption request format may comprise a priority field indicating priority of the requested preempting transmission; thus any given preemption request is an instance of request signaling that indicates a signal priority for a signal a given device intends to transmit).
Claim 25 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 12 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 26 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 13 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
For claim 27, Xin teaches claim 14, Xin further teaches: wherein determining that the operational mode of the first wireless device is the receive mode is based at least in part on an application time window after transmission of the control signal (see at least 0162-0165, preemption request may reserve a period L_length in which STA B expects to receive SU-trigger; if STA A sends the SU-trigger within L_length, STA B may commence transmission to STA A).
For claim 28, Xin teaches claim 14, Xin further teaches: wherein, to determine that the operational mode of the first wireless device is the receive mode, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second wireless device to: detect a reduction in received energy from the first wireless device via a channel for receiving the first signal (see at least 0151, after sending preemption request, STA B may recognize the interruption of STA A’s transmission by sensing the channel is idle for a short period, and commence transmission).
Claim 29 recites a method substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 30 recites a method substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 14 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 7, 8, 20, 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (US 2023/0081745) in view of Sugaya (US 2004/0114521).
For claim 7, Xin teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: participate in communication of one or more second control signals that configure a monitoring window for reception of the control signal at the first wireless device. Sugaya from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0240, 0242, wireless device may transmit window information configuring a receive window for receiving RTS from other devices). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Sugaya to the system of claim 1, so the STA A may communicate receive window configuration for receiving preemption request RTS, as suggested by Sugaya. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by indicating reception windows for control signals to other devices (Sugaya 0242).
For claim 8, Xin, Sugaya teaches claim 7, Xin further teaches: wherein the monitoring window includes a symbol or a slot or a mini-slot boundary (see at least 0169, STA B may align an OFDM symbol boundary to transmit preemption request, thus well known OFDM symbol unit may delineate RTS reception window).
Claim 20 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 7 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 21 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 8 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (US 2023/0081745) in view of Chernyshev et al. (US 2009/0259907).
For claim 9, Xin teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: participate in communication of one or more second control signals that configure a length of the control signal, a quantity of repetitions of the control signal, or both. Chernyshev from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0018, a receiver may send a retransmission request when it cannot fully decipher a packet, comprising changing/configuring a repetition (quantity) of the signal). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Chernyshev to the system of claim 1, so the STA A may send a retransmission request if it did not fully decipher the RTS (control signal), comprising configuring an additional repetition, as suggested by Chernyshev. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by requesting retransmission if needed (Chernyshev 0018).
For claim 10, Xin, Chernyshev teaches claim 9, Chernyshev further teaches: wherein the length of the control signal, the quantity of repetitions of the control signal, or both, are based at least in part on a distance between the first wireless device and a source of the control signal, a signal isolation capability of the first wireless device, a self-interference measurement associated with the first wireless device, or any combination thereof (see at least 0018, a receiver may send a retransmission request when it cannot fully decipher a packet due to noise from self interference, dispersion, nonlinearity, etc., comprising being based on inability to isolate signal and/or self interference problems). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Chernyshev to the system of claim 9, so the retransmission request (configuring the repetition quantity) is based on failed reception due to signal isolation failure from self interference, dispersion, etc., as suggested by Chernyshev. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by requesting retransmission if needed (Chernyshev 0018).
For claim 11, Xin, Chernyshev teaches claim 9, Chernyshev further teaches: wherein the one or more second control signals include a broadcast message broadcast by the first wireless device, an initial connection message transmitted by the first wireless device to a source of the control signal, a periodic control message transmitted by the first wireless device, a response message transmitted by the first wireless device responsive to reception of the control signal, or any combination thereof (see at least 0018, a receiver may send a retransmission request when it cannot fully decipher a packet, comprising a response to the received signal). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Chernyshev to the system of claim 9, so the retransmission request is sent in response to received RTS (control signal), as suggested by Chernyshev. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by requesting retransmission if needed (Chernyshev 0018).
Claim 22 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 9 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 23 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 10 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 24 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 11 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (US 2023/0081745) in view of Ji et al. (US 2024/0014978).
For claim 15, Xin teaches claim 14, Xin further teaches: wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second wireless device to: receive the first signal from the first wireless device (see at least 0130, the preempting STA may be the intended receiver of the preempted STA’s ongoing transmission), but not explicitly: wherein transmitting the control signal is based at least in part on reception of the first signal. Ji from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0120, NACK transmission may be prioritized if a UE failed to decode received data). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Ji to the system of claim 14, so the STA B (second wireless device) may send preemption request for a priority NACK (control signal) based on failed decoding of received data from STA A (first signal), as suggested by Ji. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by prioritizing feedback of any failed data communication (Ji 0120).
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (US 2023/0081745) in view of Cunningham et al. (US 2022/0070257).
For claim 19, Xin teaches claim 14, but not explicitly: wherein the control signal has a data rate that is less than a data rate threshold. Cunningham from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0037, a data rate may be evaluated for a channel; the channel may be switched or bonded if speed is below a data rate threshold). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cunningham to the system of claim 14, so the data e.g. preemption request may be evaluated as being below a data rate threshold, as suggested by Cunningham. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by evaluating signal data rate to improve the data rate if needed (Cunningham 0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 18 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.
For claim 4, the prior art fails to teach/suggest: wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: receiving a second control signal that indicates that the waveform, the sequence, or the reference signal is associated with indication of priority signaling on a per device basis. The closest prior art Xin et al. (US 2023/0081745) discloses preemption request format (0248-0254) but not the limitations of the claim(s).
For claim 18, the prior art fails to teach/suggest: wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second wireless device to: receive a second control signal that indicates that the waveform, the sequence, or the reference signal is associated with indication of priority signaling for the first wireless device corresponding to the second wireless device. The closest prior art Xin et al. (US 2023/0081745) discloses preemption request format (0248-0254) but not the limitations of the claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Silverman et al. (US 2024/0260077) discloses preemption using full duplex in wireless fidelity network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467