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 .
Application Status
2. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the present application on February 21, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on April 1, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner's Notes
4. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hedayat et al. (US 2024/0129952).
Regarding claim 1, Hedayat et al. teach the wireless device (paragraphs [0041] lines 1–17 & [0051] lines 1–23; Examiner’s Notes: UE, e.g., UE106B depicted in FIG. 1 and UE106 depicted in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wireless device” in the instant application) comprising:
a wireless transceiver (paragraph [0051] lines 1–23; Examiner’s Notes: antenna 335a in UE106 depicted in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a wireless transceiver” in the instant application) configured to
communicate within a transmit opportunity (TXOP) (paragraph [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: the TXOP in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a transmit opportunity (TXOP);”
in fact, transmitting LL traffic on the TXOP, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “communicate within a transmit opportunity (TXOP)” in the instant application),
wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to
receive a frame indicating a preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from a second wireless device (paragraph [0068] lines 1–29; Examiner’s Notes: the control information indicating the possible preemption in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a preemption allowance;”
in fact, UE106B receiving the control information/frame indicating a possible preemption regards to the low-latency traffic/transmission, e.g., from Access Point 104 or UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a frame indicating a preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from a second wireless device” in the instant application); and
a controller (paragraph [0051] lines 1–23; Examiner’s Notes: processor 302 in UE106 depicted in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a controller” in the instant application) configured to control the wireless transceiver to
pause or resume data transmission within the TXOP in response to the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device (paragraphs [0068] lines 12–29 & [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: delaying traffic/data transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “pause or resume data transmission;”
in fact, delaying traffic/data transmission on the TXOP regards to the control information/frame indicating the possible preemption for the low-latency traffic/transmission from Access Point 104 or UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “pause or resume data transmission within the TXOP in response to the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 2, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein the wireless device comprises a non-access point (AP) station (STA) device (paragraph [0041] lines 1–17; Examiner’s Notes: UE, e.g., UE106B depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the wireless device comprises a non-access point (AP) station (STA) device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to
receive, from a wireless access point (AP), the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device (paragraph [0068] lines 1–29; Examiner’s Notes: access point 104 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a wireless access point (AP);”
in fact, UE106B receiving, from access point 104, the control information/frame indicating the possible preemption for the low-latency traffic/transmission from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive, from a wireless access point (AP), the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to
transmit an uplink (UL) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to the wireless AP within the TXOP (paragraphs [0068] lines 12–29 & [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: UE106B transmitting a PPDU to access point 104 as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit an uplink (UL) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU);”
in fact, UE106B transmitting a PPDU to access point 104 within the TXOP, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit an uplink (UL) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to the wireless AP within the TXOP” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 6, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to
receive a low latency frame from the second wireless device after a low latency indication (LLI) frame is transmitted from the second wireless device (paragraph [0068] lines 1–29; Examiner’s Notes: the traffic identifier (TID)/frame associated with low-latency traffic in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a low latency indication (LLI) frame;”
in fact, UE106B receiving the low-latency traffic/frame from UE106A after the traffic identifier (TID)/frame associated with low-latency traffic is transmitted from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a low latency frame from the second wireless device after a low latency indication (LLI) frame is transmitted from the second wireless device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to
receive a frame indicating a preemption release (paragraph [0068] lines 1–29; Examiner’s Notes: preempting the transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a preemption release;”
in fact, UE106B receiving the indication/frame indicating the preemption transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a frame indicating a preemption release” in the instant application), and
wherein the controller is further configured to
resume data transmission within the TXOP using the wireless transceiver after the frame indicating the preemption release is received (paragraphs [0068] lines 12–29 & [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: delaying traffic/data transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “resume data transmission;”
in fact, delaying traffic/data transmission within the TXOP after receiving the control information/frame indicating the possible preemption in the prior art teaches the limitation of “resume data transmission within the TXOP using the wireless transceiver after the frame indicating the preemption release is received” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein the controller is further configured to
resume data transmission within the TXOP using the wireless transceiver after a predefined timeout period expires since the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device without detecting data communications using the wireless transceiver (paragraph [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: the possible transmission timeline in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a predefined timeout period;”
in fact, delaying/resuming data transmission within the TXOP after the possible transmission timeline since the indication/frame indicating the possible preemption for LL indication/frame transmission from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “resume data transmission within the TXOP using the wireless transceiver after a predefined timeout period expires since the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device without detecting data communications using the wireless transceiver” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 9, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein both the wireless device and the second wireless device are non-access point (AP) station (STA) devices (paragraph [0041] lines 1–17; Examiner’s Notes: UE106B and UE1061 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein both the wireless device and the second wireless device are non-access point (AP) station (STA) devices” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 10, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit is set to a specific value in a physical layer (PHY) header of the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device (paragraph [0078] lines 1–42; Examiner’s Notes: the indication bit regards to possible low-latency transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit;”
in fact, the indication bit/value regards to possible low-latency transmission in the physical layer header of the packet/frame indicating the preemption from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit is set to a specific value in a physical layer (PHY) header of the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 11, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit is set to a specific value in media access control (MAC) control information of the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device (paragraph [0078] lines 1–42; Examiner’s Notes: the indication bit regards to possible low-latency transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit;”
in fact, the indication bit/value in MAC layer/frame indicating the possible preemption for low-latency indication frame transmission from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit is set to a specific value in media access control (MAC) control information of the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 13, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein the wireless device is compatible with an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 protocol (paragraph [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: UE, e.g., UE106B, regards to IEEE 802.11 version as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the wireless device is compatible with an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 protocol” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, Hedayat et al. further teach the wireless device, wherein the wireless device is a component of a multi-link device (MLD) (paragraph [0041] lines 1–17; Examiner’s Notes: UE106B having multiple links, e.g., to UE106A, access point 104 and base station 102, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the wireless device is a component of a multi-link device (MLD)” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 15, Hedayat et al. teach the non-access point (AP) station (STA) device (paragraphs [0041] lines 1–17 & [0051] lines 1–23; Examiner’s Notes: UE, e.g., UE106B depicted in FIG. 1 and UE106 depicted in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wireless device” in the instant application) comprising:
a wireless transceiver (paragraph [0051] lines 1–23; Examiner’s Notes: antenna 335a in UE106 depicted in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a wireless transceiver” in the instant application) configured to
communicate within a transmit opportunity (TXOP) (paragraph [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: the TXOP in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a transmit opportunity (TXOP);”
in fact, transmitting LL traffic on the TXOP, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “communicate within a transmit opportunity (TXOP)” in the instant application),
wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to
receive, from a wireless AP, a frame indicating a preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from a second non-AP STA device (paragraph [0068] lines 1–29; Examiner’s Notes: Access Point 104 as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a wireless AP;”
UE106A as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second non-AP STA device;”
the control information indicating the possible preemption in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a preemption allowance;”
in fact, UE106B receiving, from Access Point 104, the control information/frame indicating a possible preemption regards to the low-latency traffic/transmission from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive, from a wireless AP, a frame indicating a preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from a second non-AP STA device” in the instant application),
wherein a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit is set to a specific value in a physical layer (PHY) header of the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device (paragraph [0078] lines 1–42; Examiner’s Notes: the indication bit regards to possible low-latency transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit;”
in fact, the indication bit/value regards to possible low-latency transmission in the physical layer header of the packet/frame indicating the preemption from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein a low latency indication allowance (LIA) bit is set to a specific value in a physical layer (PHY) header of the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device” in the instant application); and
a controller (paragraph [0051] lines 1–23; Examiner’s Notes: processor 302 in UE106 depicted in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a controller” in the instant application) configured to control the wireless transceiver to
pause or resume data transmission within the TXOP in response to the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second non-AP STA device (paragraphs [0068] lines 12–29 & [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: delaying traffic/data transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “pause or resume data transmission;”
in fact, delaying traffic/data transmission on the TXOP regards to the control information/frame indicating the possible preemption for the low-latency traffic/transmission from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “pause or resume data transmission within the TXOP in response to the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second non-AP STA device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 16, Hedayat et al. teach the method for wireless communications, the method comprising:
using a wireless transceiver of a wireless device (paragraphs [0041] lines 1–17 & [0051] lines 1–23; Examiner’s Notes: UE, e.g., UE106B depicted in FIG. 1 and UE106 depicted in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wireless device;”
antenna 335a in UE106 depicted in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a wireless transceiver” in the instant application),
communicating within a transmit opportunity (TXOP) (paragraph [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: the TXOP in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a transmit opportunity (TXOP);”
in fact, transmitting LL traffic on the TXOP, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “communicating within a transmit opportunity (TXOP)” in the instant application), including
receiving a frame indicating a preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from a second wireless device (paragraph [0068] lines 1–29; Examiner’s Notes: the control information indicating the possible preemption in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a preemption allowance;”
in fact, UE106B receiving the control information/frame indicating a possible preemption regards to the low-latency traffic/transmission, e.g., from Access Point 104 or UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving a frame indicating a preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from a second wireless device” in the instant application); and
controlling the wireless transceiver to pause or resume data transmission within the TXOP in response to the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device (paragraphs [0068] lines 12–29 & [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: delaying traffic/data transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “pause or resume data transmission;”
in fact, delaying traffic/data transmission on the TXOP regards to the control information/frame indicating the possible preemption for the low-latency traffic/transmission from Access Point 104 or UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “controlling the wireless transceiver to pause or resume data transmission within the TXOP in response to the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 17, Hedayat et al. further teach the method, wherein the wireless device comprises a non-access point (AP) station (STA) device (paragraph [0041] lines 1–17; Examiner’s Notes: UE, e.g., UE106B depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the wireless device comprises a non-access point (AP) station (STA) device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 18, Hedayat et al. further teach the method, wherein receiving the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device comprises
receiving, from a wireless access point (AP), the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device (paragraph [0068] lines 1–29; Examiner’s Notes: access point 104 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a wireless access point (AP);”
in fact, UE106B receiving, from access point 104, the control information/frame indicating the possible preemption for the low-latency traffic/transmission from UE106A, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving, from a wireless access point (AP), the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 19, Hedayat et al. teach the method, further comprising using the wireless transceiver of the wireless device, transmitting an uplink (UL) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to the wireless AP within the TXOP (paragraphs [0068] lines 12–29 & [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: UE106B transmitting a PPDU to access point 104 as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit an uplink (UL) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU);”
in fact, UE106B transmitting a PPDU to access point 104 within the TXOP, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “using the wireless transceiver of the wireless device, transmitting an uplink (UL) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to the wireless AP within the TXOP” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 20, Hedayat et al. teach the method, further comprising
receiving a frame indicating a preemption release (paragraph [0068] lines 1–29; Examiner’s Notes: preempting the transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a preemption release;”
in fact, UE106B receiving the indication/frame indicating the preemption transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving a frame indicating a preemption release” in the instant application), and
wherein pausing or resuming data transmission within the TXOP using the wireless transceiver in response to the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device comprises
resuming data transmission within the TXOP using the wireless transceiver after the frame indicating the preemption release is received (paragraphs [0068] lines 12–29 & [0089] lines 1–27; Examiner’s Notes: delaying traffic/data transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “resuming data transmission;”
in fact, delaying traffic/data transmission within the TXOP after receiving the control information/frame indicating the possible preemption in the prior art teaches the limitation of “resuming data transmission within the TXOP using the wireless transceiver after the frame indicating the preemption release is received” in the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedayat et al. (US 2024/0129952) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0263635).
Regarding claim 12, Hedayat et al. teach the wireless device without explicitly teaching receiving low latency buffered frame indications from a plurality of wireless devices.
Li et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to receive low latency buffered frame indications from a plurality of wireless devices using the same frame content, Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS), Number of Spatial Streams (Nss), or scrambling initial value (paragraphs [0003] lines 1-24 & [0097] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: receiving the low latency indication/frame from different wireless devices on the same multimedia content in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive low latency buffered frame indications from a plurality of wireless devices using the same frame content;”
consequently, receiving the low latency indication/frame from different wireless devices on the same multimedia content in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to receive low latency buffered frame indications from a plurality of wireless devices using the same frame content, Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS), Number of Spatial Streams (Nss), or scrambling initial value” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Li et al. in the system of Hedayat et al.
The motivation for implementing receiving low latency buffered frame indications from a plurality of wireless devices, is to further enhance the mechanism for transmitting an uplink preemption indication in an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) system and identifying the resources or symbols that are punctured by the IAB in order to minimize self-interference at an IAB node when an ultra-reliable-low latency communications (URLLC) packet is received at the IAB node from one of a child IAB node or a user equipment (UE) during an on-going uplink transmission from an IAB node to a parent backhaul node.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to receive, from the wireless AP, the frame indicating the preemption allowance for low latency indication frame transmission from the second wireless device after the UL PPDU is transmitted to the wireless AP” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Amerga et al. (US 2013/0294318) is generally directed to various aspects of the method for transmitting a downlink signal at a base station in a wireless communication system includes generating a user equipment (UE)-specific reference signal sequence and mapping the generated sequence to resource elements (REs) predetermined according to antenna port groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights