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 Amendment
Amendments filed on 05/20/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 remain pending in the application. The amendments change the scopes of the previously presented claims. New grounds of rejections are applied to the amended claims and the current Office Action is made FINAL as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection in the claims 1-3 and 5-7 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. The antecedent basis issue has not been in addressed in the amended claim 4, therefore, the objection to claim 4 is sustained.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and drawings have overcome each and every objection in the specification and drawings previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims did not overcome each and every rejection based on 35 USC § 112(b) to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. Therefore, the rejection to claims 1, 5 and 7, as well as their dependent claims are sustained.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection based on 35 USC § 112(d) to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 in a reply filed 05/20/2026 (hereinafter, Remarks) regarding newly added limitations have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to newly added cited portions of the references being used in the current rejection.
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8:
The applicant alleges that the Office Action does not demonstrate that CURMINA discloses “A first distinction lies in the recited use of a CTS packet between transmission rounds. The amended claims require that a CTS packet must be transmitted between transmission rounds and that the CTS packet must also serve as a negative acknowledgment (NACK) for a station that has already sent a DATA packet in a previous transmission round and is waiting for the transmitting node to confirm reception thereof” (Remarks Page 10, Emphasis added).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Fig. 1 of CURMINA, a CTS packet is transmitted between each transmission rounds. Furthermore, CURMINA discloses “transmitting a second CTS packet between transmission rounds (Fig. 1 – CTS between Transmission round 1 and Transmission round 2), wherein said second CTS packet has a second function as a negative acknowledgment (NACK) for a STA that has already sent a data packet in a previous transmission round and waits for the transmitting node to confirm reception thereof ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 3] To continue the transmission period through multiple transmission rounds, the AP sends a CTS packet instead of an ACK packet after receiving the data packets... When the CTS packet is received by stations which sent data packets during the last transmission round, then the CTS packet is considered as a NACK packet... if a station receives a CTS packet without its address after sending a data packet in the last transmission round, then it assumes that its data packet was received successfully. Otherwise, if a station finds its address in the CTS packet... then it transmits its data packet again because the last transmission was failed)” as recited in the amended claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
1004
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Annotated Fig . 1 – CTS packets between transmission rounds are circled).
The applicant further alleges that the Office Action does not demonstrate that CURMINA discloses “A second distinction concerns the recited sequence in which, after the contention period ends, a transmission period begins that includes at least one transmission round, and within that transmission period a CTS packet is transmitted between transmission rounds. While the Examiner generally refers to multiple transmission and contention rounds, CURMINA does not disclose the claimed sequence that includes (i) stopping the contention period in response to CTS transmission, (ii) starting a transmission period comprising at least one transmission round, and (iii) transmitting a CTS packet between transmission rounds with the recited NACK function.” (Remarks Page 10, Emphasis added).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. CURMINA discloses an example of the operation and sequential steps of the multi-round transmission protocol, as shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, CURMINA discloses “d) starting, after stopping the contention period (Fig. 1 – Contention period; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time), a transmission period (Fig. 1 – Transmission period; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 1 Para 2] Furthermore, only a CTS packet is transmitted between transmission rounds and it performs two functions: indicate what stations will transmit in the next transmission round, the traditional function of CTS packet, and inform which stations sent successfully in the last transmission round, this new function is a negative acknowledgment (NACK) mechanism)... wherein the transmission period comprises at least one transmission round (Fig. 1 – Transmission period: Transmission Round 1 to Transmission Round NT); and
e) transmitting a second CTS packet between transmission rounds (Fig. 1 – CTS between Transmission round 1 and Transmission round 2), wherein said second CTS packet has a second function as a negative acknowledgment (NACK) for a STA that has already sent a data packet in a previous transmission round and waits for the transmitting node to confirm reception thereof ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 3] To continue the transmission period through multiple transmission rounds, the AP sends a CTS packet instead of an ACK packet after receiving the data packets... When the CTS packet is received by stations which sent data packets during the last transmission round, then the CTS packet is considered as a NACK packet... if a station receives a CTS packet without its address after sending a data packet in the last transmission round, then it assumes that its data packet was received successfully. Otherwise, if a station finds its address in the CTS packet... then it transmits its data packet again because the last transmission was failed)” as recited in the amended claim 1.
The applicant further claims “Another distinction concerns stopping the contention period. According to the claims, the transmitting node uses a rule to determine when to transmit the CTS packet and end the contention period. Although the Office Action refers to CURMINA in relation to a stopping strategy, it does not demonstrate the disclosure of the aforementioned rule in conjunction with the other claimed features, such as the subsequent transmission period and the CTS packet transmitted between transmission rounds with the aforementioned function.” (Remarks Page 11, Emphasis added).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Fig. 1 of CURMINA, the start of the transmission period is subsequent to the end of contention period, after a CTS packet is transmitted, wherein the CTS packet is transmitted once a SIFS duration has passed.
PNG
media_image2.png
410
927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Annotated Fig . 1 – the CTS packet and the SIFS at the end of the contention period are circled).
Furthermore, The AP determines to stop the contention period is based on the optimal stopping strategy wherein the optimal strategy comprises of a threshold that must be set. Hence the optimal stopping strategy is considered a rule because the AP is using it to decide when to stop the contention period and proceed to the transmission period. Thus, CURMINA discloses “wherein the transmitting node uses a rule to determine when to transmit the CTS packet and ends the contention period ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] The AP determines whether to stop the contention period after observing the outcome of the contention round based on the optimal stopping strategy… To obtain multi-round transmission during the transmission period, the threshold of the optimal stopping strategy θ must be set near to a multiple of the MPR capability. Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time. When the CTS packet is received, all stations know that the contention period is finished and only the stations selected by the CTS packet begin the transmission period sending their data packets after a SIFS time)” recited in the amended claim 5.
The applicant further claims “The specification also describes additional implementation details, such as the order of stations, grouping of transmissions, and adaptation of contention parameters. While these aspects are part of the disclosed protocol context, they are not required by the present claims. The Office Action does not rely on these details to establish lack of novelty, nor does it demonstrate that the limitations themselves are disclosed” (Remarks Page 10, Emphasis added).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In rePrater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim. Furthermore, the specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms (See MPEP section 2173.01, 2173.03 and 2173.05).
Thus, the applicant argument is not persuasive.
Regarding same-inventor consideration:
The examiner notes that the present application and the cited prior art shares the same inventor. However, the cited prior art was published in 2015 which exceeds the one-year grace period before the effective filing date of the present application (12/14/2022), therefore, turning the same-inventor disclosure into a statutory bar (See MPEP section 2153).
Regarding independent claim 7, the applicant submits the same arguments as presented in claim 1. Thus, examiner applies the same reasoning as presented in claim 1. Similarly, examiner applies the same reasoning for their dependent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 “control layer ("MAC") ... ("MPR") capability” should read “control layer (MAC) ... (MPR) capability”.
Claim 1 “initiating a distributed interframe space (DIFS period” should read “initiating a distributed interframe space (DIFS) period”.
Claim 3 “ ("NAV")” should read “ (NAV)”
Claim 4 “increasing the number of” should read “increasing a number of ” to address the antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 3-5 and 7-8 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 “initiating a distributed interframe space (DIFS period by a transmitting node... it initiates a contention period” is indefinite because it is unclear whether “transmitting node”, “communication channel” or “the last ACK packet” is the one being referred to “it”. For the purpose of examination, “it” will be interpreted as “ the transmitting node”.
Claims 3 and 8 recites the limitation “wherein the STA that successfully receives an RTS or CTS packet,” which is indefinite because “the STA” lacks clear antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the STA” refers to the STA recited in claim 1 as “sending an RTS packet via a station (STA),” the STA recited in claim 1 as “for a STA that has already sent a data packet,” or whether the limitation is intended to recite “wherein a STA that successfully receives an RTS or CTS packet.” For the purpose of examination, “the STA” recited in claims 3 and 8 will be interpreted as the STA recited in claim 1 as “sending an RTS packet via a station (STA).”
Claim 4 recites “ the CTS and the ACK packets ” is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a clear to send (CTS) packet is transmitted by said transmitting node” recited in claim 1 or “a second CTS packet ” recited in claim 1 is the one being referred to “the CTS” recited in claim 4 and whether “a last acknowledgment(ACK) packet transmitted” recited in claim 1 or “the transmitting node transmits an ACK packet” recited in claim 1 is the one being referred to “the ACK” recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, “the CTS” and “the ACK” recited in claim 4 will be interpreted as “a clear to send (CTS) packet is transmitted by said transmitting node” and “the transmitting node transmits an ACK packet” respectively, recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “when to transmits the CTS packet” is infinite. It is unclear whether “the CTS packet” refers to “to transmit a CTS packet after successfully” recited in claim 5,“a clear to send (CTS) packet is transmitted by said transmitting node” recited in claim 1 or “a second CTS packet ” recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “the CTS packet” recited in claim 5 will be interpreted as “to transmit a CTS packet after successfully” recited in claim 5.
Claim 7 has the similar indefiniteness; therefore, the examiner applies the same reasoning for the rejection as claim 1. Similarly, examiner applies the same reasoning for their dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by V. Sandoval-Curmina et al., "Multi-round transmission protocol with multipacket reception for multirate IEEE802.11 WLANs," MILCOM 2015 - 2015 IEEE Military Communications Conference, Tampa, FL, USA, 2015, pp. 79-84 (hereinafter CURMINA).
Regarding claim 1, CURMINA discloses:
A method for performing a protocol at an 802.11 medium access control layer ("MAC") for leveraging multiple packet reception ("MPR") capability ([Page 79 – Abstract] - this paper, it is proposed a multi-round transmission (MRT) method for exploiting the MPR capability in the uplink channel over 802.11 wireless local area networks (WLANs). The proposed method schedules the access to the channel through multiple rounds during the transmission period. Analytical performance is provided and verified with simulations; [Page 79 – I. Introduction, Col 1 - Para 1] Since its standardization in 1999, the 802.11 protocol uses carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) in the medium access control (MAC) layer and it is one of the most used random access protocols in wireless local area networks (WLANs)), wherein said method is implemented in a wireless communication system (WLAN is a type of wireless communication system), the method characterized in that it comprises the steps of:
PNG
media_image3.png
504
1618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a) initiating a distributed interframe space (DIFS period (Fig. 1 – DIFs before contention round 1) by a transmitting node ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 4] After the AP receives the data packets of the last transmission round, it sends an ACK packet to indicate to all stations that the transmission period has finished and a new renew interval is beginning; (DIFs is initiated and the contention round 1 starts after the AP sends an ACK packet to end the last transmission round, see Fig. 1)), so that when a communication channel is free since a last acknowledgment(ACK) packet transmitted (Fig. 1 – idle slot before contention round 1; [Page 80 – II. Network Model, Col 1 Para 5] The CTS and ACK packets are modified to support the MPR capability. Further, the scenario operates in a centralized scheme with a common channel for the uplink and downlink between stations and the AP), it initiates a contention period (Fig. 1 – Contention period; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 4] After the AP receives the data packets of the last transmission round, it sends an ACK packet to indicate to all stations that the transmission period has finished and a new renew interval is beginning; (contention period is initiated and the contention round 1 starts after the AP sends an ACK packet, see Fig. 1));
b) stopping the contention period initiated by the transmitting node after a short interframe space (SIFS) (Fig. 1 – SIFs after CTS in contention period) period of having a clear to send (CTS) packet (Fig. 1 – CTS in contention period) is transmitted by said transmitting node in response to having received a plurality of request to send (RTS) packets (Fig. 1 – RTS 1- RTS N; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] the AP decides to continue the contention rounds, then it keeps silent. Therefore, other stations will continue to count down after sensing the channel idle for a DIFS time and transmit their RTS packets when their backoff timers reach zero… Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time. When the CTS packet is received, all stations know that the contention period is finished and only the stations selected by the CTS packet begin the transmission period sending their data packets after a SIFS time);
c) sending an RTS packet via a station (STA) during said contention period (Fig. 1 – RTS 1- RTS N; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] the AP decides to continue the contention rounds, then it keeps silent. Therefore, other stations will continue to count down after sensing the channel idle for a DIFS time and transmit their RTS packets when their backoff timers reach zero… Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time), wherein said STA has a data packet to transmit ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 1] Each station with data packet to transmit contends for the channel through transmitting RTS packet when its backoff timer reaches zero);
d) starting, after stopping the contention period (Fig. 1 – Contention period; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time), a transmission period (Fig. 1 – Transmission period; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 1 Para 2] Furthermore, only a CTS packet is transmitted between transmission rounds and it performs two functions: indicate what stations will transmit in the next transmission round, the traditional function of CTS packet, and inform which stations sent successfully in the last transmission round, this new function is a negative acknowledgment (NACK) mechanism) with a first transmission (Fig. 1 – Transmission period: Transmission Round 1) of the transmitting node of a plurality of data packets (Fig. 1 – DATA 1 – DATA 4; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] generates multi-round transmission with approximately M transmitted data packets in each round) and ending after a DIFS period (Fig. 1 – Transmission period: DIFS during Transmission Round NT) during which the transmitting node transmits an ACK packet (Fig. 1 – ACK during Transmission Round NT); [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 4] After the AP receives the data packets of the last transmission round, it sends an ACK packet to indicate to all stations that the transmission period has finished and a new renew interval is beginning), wherein the transmission period comprises at least one transmission round (Fig. 1 – Transmission period: Transmission Round 1 to Transmission Round NT); and
e) transmitting a second CTS packet between transmission rounds (Fig. 1 – CTS between Transmission round 1 and Transmission round 2), wherein said second CTS packet has a second function as a negative acknowledgment (NACK) for a STA that has already sent a data packet in a previous transmission round and waits for the transmitting node to confirm reception thereof ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 3] To continue the transmission period through multiple transmission rounds, the AP sends a CTS packet instead of an ACK packet after receiving the data packets... When the CTS packet is received by stations which sent data packets during the last transmission round, then the CTS packet is considered as a NACK packet... if a station receives a CTS packet without its address after sending a data packet in the last transmission round, then it assumes that its data packet was received successfully. Otherwise, if a station finds its address in the CTS packet... then it transmits its data packet again because the last transmission was failed).
Regarding claim 4, CURMINA further discloses method according to claim 1.
wherein a format of the CTS and ACK packets are varied by increasing the number of receiver address (RA) fields from one up to a value M equal to the MPR capacity of the transmitting node ([Page 79 – I. Introduction, Col 2 - Para 2] The only modification made in the CSMA/CA with RTS/CTS was to increase the number of Receiver Address (RA) fields in CTS and ACK packets to a number equal to the MPR capability of channel; [Page 80 – II. Network Model, Col 1 - Para 5] The CTS and ACK packets are modified to support the MPR capability (e.g., increase the number of RA fields in CTS and ACK packets to the number of the MPR capability)… Only the PHY layer of the AP provides an MPR capability equal to M. Therefore, the new collision condition in the AP occurs when M+1 or more stations transmit packets simultaneously. In this situation, the AP cannot receive the packets successfully).
Regarding claim 5, CURMINA further discloses the method according to claim 1.
wherein the transmitting node decides whether or not to transmit a CTS packet (Fig. 1 – CTS in contention period) after successfully receiving a plurality of RTS packets (Fig. 1 – RTS 1- RTS N), wherein the transmitting node uses a rule to determine when to transmit the CTS packet and ends the contention period ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] The AP determines whether to stop the contention period after observing the outcome of the contention round based on the optimal stopping strategy… To obtain multi-round transmission during the transmission period, the threshold of the optimal stopping strategy θ must be set near to a multiple of the MPR capability. Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time. When the CTS packet is received, all stations know that the contention period is finished and only the stations selected by the CTS packet begin the transmission period sending their data packets after a SIFS time).
Regarding claim 7, CURMINA discloses:
A wireless communication system, comprising transmitter and receiver nodes of a wireless network ([Page 79 – I. Introduction, Col 1 Para 1] Since its standardization in 1999, the 802.11 protocol uses carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) in the medium access control (MAC) layer and it is one of the most used random access protocols in wireless local area networks (WLANs). Actually, wireless receivers are capable of employing sophisticated signal processing techniques, such as complex modulation schemes, spread spectrum and Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) technology [1]. These techniques can separate multiple packets transmitted (hence, wireless network has a transmitter and receiver in order to transmit and receive packets) simultaneously in the channel; this concept is known as multiple packet reception (MPR) [1]), wherein said wireless communication system is configured to perform a method for implementing a protocol at the 802.11 medium access control layer (MAC) for leveraging multiple packet reception (MPR) capability ([Page 79 – Abstract] - this paper, it is proposed a multi-round transmission (MRT) method for exploiting the MPR capability in the uplink channel over 802.11 wireless local area networks (WLANs). The proposed method schedules the access to the channel through multiple rounds during the transmission period. Analytical performance is provided and verified with simulations; [Page 79 – I. Introduction, Col 1 - Para 1] Since its standardization in 1999, the 802.11 protocol uses carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) in the medium access control (MAC) layer and it is one of the most used random access protocols in wireless local area networks (WLANs)) based on multiple transmission and contention rounds ([Page 79 – Abstract] MRT; Page 81 - Fig 1 – Operating example of the multi-round transmission protocol for IEEE 802.11
PNG
media_image3.png
504
1618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
WLAN, contention round 1,…contention round NC… transmission round 1,… transmission round NT), wherein said method comprising the steps of:
a) initiating, by a transmitting node ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 4] After the AP receives the data packets of the last transmission round, it sends an ACK packet to indicate to all stations that the transmission period has finished and a new renew interval is beginning; (DIFs is initiated and the contention round 1 starts after the AP sends an ACK packet to end the last transmission round, see Fig. 1)), a distributed interframe space (DIFS) period (Fig. 1 – DIFs before contention round 1), wherein, when the communication channel is free (Fig. 1 – idle slot before contention round 1) since a last acknowledgement (ACK) packet is transmitted (Fig. 1 – ACK before contention round 1), said transmitting node initiates a contention period (Fig. 1 – Contention period; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 4] After the AP receives the data packets of the last transmission round, it sends an ACK packet to indicate to all stations that the transmission period has finished and a new renew interval is beginning; (contention period is initiated and the contention round 1 starts after the AP sends an ACK packet, see Fig. 1));
b) stopping, by the transmitting node, said contention period after a short interframe space (SIFS) (Fig. 1 – SIFs after CTS in contention period) period after a clear to send (CTS) packet (Fig. 1 – CTS in contention period) is transmitted by said transmitting node in response to having received a plurality of request to send (RTS) packets (Fig. 1 – RTS 1- RTS N; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] the AP decides to continue the contention rounds, then it keeps silent. Therefore, other stations will continue to count down after sensing the channel idle for a DIFS time and transmit their RTS packets when their backoff timers reach zero… Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time. When the CTS packet is received, all stations know that the contention period is finished and only the stations selected by the CTS packet begin the transmission period sending their data packets after a SIFS time); and
c) sending an RTS packet, via an station (STA) during the contention period (Fig. 1 – RTS 1- RTS N; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] the AP decides to continue the contention rounds, then it keeps silent. Therefore, other stations will continue to count down after sensing the channel idle for a DIFS time and transmit their RTS packets when their backoff timers reach zero… Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time), where said STA has a data packet to transmit ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 1] Each station with data packet to transmit contends for the channel through transmitting RTS packet when its backoff timer reaches zero); and
d) starting, after stopping said contention period (Fig. 1 – Contention period; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] Otherwise, if the AP decides to stop the contentions rounds, then it sends a CTS packet after a SIFS time), a transmission period (Fig. 1 – Transmission period; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 1 Para 2] Furthermore, only a CTS packet is transmitted between transmission rounds and it performs two functions: indicate what stations will transmit in the next transmission round, the traditional function of CTS packet, and inform which stations sent successfully in the last transmission round, this new function is a negative acknowledgment (NACK) mechanism) with a first transmission (Fig. 1 – Transmission period: Transmission Round 1) of the transmitting node of a plurality of data packets (Fig. 1 – DATA 1 – DATA 4; [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] generates multi-round transmission with approximately M transmitted data packets in each round) and ending after a DIFS period (Fig. 1 – DIFS during Transmission Round NT) during which the transmitting node transmits an ACK packet (Fig. 1 – ACK during Transmission Round NT); [Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 4] After the AP receives the data packets of the last transmission round, it sends an ACK packet to indicate to all stations that the transmission period has finished and a new renew interval is beginning), wherein said transmission period comprises at least one transmission round (Fig. 1 – Transmission period: Transmission Round 1 to Transmission Round NT); and
e) transmitting a CTS packet between transmission rounds (Fig. 1 – CTS between Transmission round 1 and Transmission round 2), wherein said CTS packet has a second function as a negative acknowledgment (NACK) for a STA that has already sent a data packet in a previous transmission round and waits for said transmitting node to confirm reception thereof ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 3] To continue the transmission period through multiple transmission rounds, the AP sends a CTS packet instead of an ACK packet after receiving the data packets... When the CTS packet is received by stations which sent data packets during the last transmission round, then the CTS packet is considered as a NACK packet... if a station receives a CTS packet without its address after sending a data packet in the last transmission round, then it assumes that its data packet was received successfully. Otherwise, if a station finds its address in the CTS packet... then it transmits its data packet again because the last transmission was failed).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURMINA in view of SUN et al. (US 20230007708 A1, hereinafter, SUN).
Regarding claim 3, CURMINA further discloses the method according to claim 1.
wherein the STA that successfully receive an RTS or CTS packet ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2-4] When the CTS packet is received, all stations know that the contention period is finished and only the stations selected by the CTS packet begin the transmission period sending their data packets after a SIFS time) has an estimate of the time ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] generates multi-round transmission with approximately M transmitted data packets in each round. Furthermore, only a CTS packet is transmitted between transmission rounds and it performs two functions: indicate what stations will transmit in the next transmission round, (hence the CTS packet indicates a time allocated for the next transmission round)) that the communication channel will be allocated for transmission of the plurality of data packets (Fig. 1 – DATA 1 – DATA 4; [Page 80 – II. Network Model, Col 1 Para 5] the scenario operates in a centralized scheme with a common channel for the uplink and downlink between stations and the AP).
CURMINA does not explicitly disclose the plurality of data packets are transmitted by means of a mechanism known as a network allocation vector (“NAV”).
However, SUN discloses a plurality of data packets are transmitted by means of a mechanism known as a network allocation vector (“NAV”) ([0003] In a process of multi-access point transmission, other listening stations that can receive the data packet each need to set a network allocation vector (NAV) according to information included in the data packet, and cannot send data when the NAV is not zero, thereby avoiding collision with a communication node participating in the multi-access point transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the transmission of the plurality of data packets of CURMINA to include the plurality of data packets are transmitted by means the mechanism known as NAV as taught by SUN in order to avoid collisions of data packets with other STAs that are participating in the multi-access point transmission (SUN - [0003] The next-generation Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) supports multi-access point transmission between at least one access point (AP) and at least one wireless station (STA)... In a process of multi-access point transmission, other listening stations that can receive the data packet each need to set a network allocation vector (NAV) according to information included in the data packet, and cannot send data when the NAV is not zero, thereby avoiding collision with a communication node participating in the multi-access point transmission; [0022] FIG. 1... Collision with the hidden station can be avoided by including a protected channel access time (namely, a duration field) in a Media Access Control (MAC) header in a radio frame. During a time period after the end of the radio frame, other listening stations that receive the radio frame including the protected channel access time will each set a NAV stored locally, so that the listening station will not send data during the duration, avoiding collision with the hidden station due to channel contention).
Regarding claim 8, CURMINA further discloses the method according to claim 1.
wherein the STA that successfully receive an RTS or CTS packet ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2-4] When the CTS packet is received, all stations know that the contention period is finished and only the stations selected by the CTS packet begin the transmission period sending their data packets after a SIFS time) has an estimate of the time ([Page 81 – III. Proposed Protocol, Col 2 Para 2] generates multi-round transmission with approximately M transmitted data packets in each round. Furthermore, only a CTS packet is transmitted between transmission rounds and it performs two functions: indicate what stations will transmit in the next transmission round, (hence the CTS packet indicates a time allocated for the next transmission round)) that the communication channel will be allocated for transmission of the plurality of data packets (Fig. 1 – DATA 1 – DATA 4; [Page 80 – II. Network Model, Col 1 Para 5] the scenario operates in a centralized scheme with a common channel for the uplink and downlink between stations and the AP).
CURMINA does not explicitly disclose the plurality of data packets are transmitted by means of a mechanism known as a network allocation vector (NAV).
However, SUN discloses a plurality of data packets are transmitted by means of a mechanism known as a network allocation vector (NAV) ([0003] In a process of multi-access point transmission, other listening stations that can receive the data packet each need to set a network allocation vector (NAV) according to information included in the data packet, and cannot send data when the NAV is not zero, thereby avoiding collision with a communication node participating in the multi-access point transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the transmission of the plurality of data packets of CURMINA to include the plurality of data packets are transmitted by means the mechanism known as NAV as taught by SUN in order to avoid collisions of data packets with other STAs that are participating in the multi-access point transmission (SUN - [0003] The next-generation Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) supports multi-access point transmission between at least one access point (AP) and at least one wireless station (STA)... In a process of multi-access point transmission, other listening stations that can receive the data packet each need to set a network allocation vector (NAV) according to information included in the data packet, and cannot send data when the NAV is not zero, thereby avoiding collision with a communication node participating in the multi-access point transmission; [0022] FIG. 1... Collision with the hidden station can be avoided by including a protected channel access time (namely, a duration field) in a Media Access Control (MAC) header in a radio frame. During a time period after the end of the radio frame, other listening stations that receive the radio frame including the protected channel access time will each set a NAV stored locally, so that the listening station will not send data during the duration, avoiding collision with the hidden station due to channel contention).
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 THERESA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MOO JEONG can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/THERESA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights