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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seok et al, application no. 2019/0274166, hereinafter known as Seok.
As to claim 1, Seok discloses a first station (STA) comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first STA to: receive, from a second STA, a first frame indicating a transmission completion time of a second frame destined to a third STA (Seok, [0038]-[0040], destination STA (first STA) receives from source STA (second STA) first frame RTS with a duration which corresponds to time to transmit a data frame (second frame); this time is saves and updated by source STA, destination STA and other STA as indication of transmission time); transmit, to the third STA, a first request-to-send (RTS) frame; receive, from the third STA, a clear-to-send (CTS) frame (Seok, [0022], [0048], duration time used by STA to perform RTS and CTS exchange as known in the art); and after receiving the CTS frame, transmit, to the third STA, the second frame based on determining that an estimated transmission completion time of the second frame is no later than the transmission completion time (Seok, [0021-[0022], [0035]-[0039], STA communicates, third frame, once determining transmission can be completed within duration threshold).
As to claim 2, Seok discloses wherein the first frame comprises a second request-to-send (RTS) frame, and wherein the second frame comprises a data frame associated with the second RTS frame (Seok, [0038], Frame to be sent in a duration, such a first frame, can be RTS frame, [0039]-[0040], RTS subsequentially used by STAs to send data with duration consideration).
As to claim 9, Seok discloses wherein the first frame comprises a QoS null frame or an action frame (Seok, [0021]-[022], [0044], beacon frames as action frame to indicate transmission timing)
As to claim 11, Seok discloses first station (STA) comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first STA to: transmit, to a second STA, a first frame comprising a transmission completion time of a second frame destined to a third STA (Seok, [0038]-[0040], destination STA (first STA) receives from source STA (second STA) first frame RTS with a duration which corresponds to time to transmit a data frame (second frame); this time is saves and updated by source STA, destination STA and other STA as indication of transmission time); and receive, from the second STA, a third frame in response to the first frame (Seok, [0021-[0022], [0035]-[0039], STA communicates, third frame, once determining transmission can be completed within duration threshold).
As to claim 12, Seok discloses the first STA of claim 11, wherein the first frame comprises a request-to-send (RTS) frame, and wherein the third frame comprises a clear-to-send (CTS) frame (Seok, [0022], [0048], duration time used by STA to perform RTS and CTS exchange as known in the art).
As to claim 18, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 9 above by Seok.
As to claim 20, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 1 above by Seok.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Sakoda, application no. 2009/0274101, hereinafter known Sakoda
As to claim 3, Seok discloses the first STA of claim 1. Seok does not disclose however Sakoda discloses wherein the first frame is same as the second frame, and wherein the first frame comprises a data frame (Sakoda, figure 16. All frames, including data frame, with duration field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok to include the limitations of wherein the first frame is same as the second frame, and wherein the first frame comprises a data frame as taught by Sakoda. Duration fields for plural types of frames including data frame are well known in the art.
As to claim 13, Seok discloses the first STA of claim 11. Seok does not disclose however Sakoda discloses wherein the first frame comprises a data frame and the third frame comprises an acknowledgment frame, and wherein the first frame is same as the second frame (Sakoda, figure 17, sending ACK for data frame after RTS/CTS exchange).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok to include the limitations of wherein the first frame comprises a data frame and the third frame comprises an acknowledgment frame, and wherein the first frame is same as the second frame as taught by Sakoda. ACK or NACK are used in the art to provide feed on transmitted data.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Yu, Heejung, application no. 2024/0349336, hereinafter known Yu.
As to claim 4, Seok discloses the first STA of claim 1. Seok does not disclose however Yu discloses wherein the first frame further comprises an indication of low latency traffic (Yu, [0110], Low latency indication in trigger frame to STA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok to include the limitations of wherein the first frame further comprises an indication of low latency traffic as taught by Yu. Low latency indication invariably informs devices in the network certain communications and frame require low latency.
As to claim 5, Seok and Yu disclose the first STA of claim 1. Seok does not disclose however Yu discloses wherein the indication of low latency traffic informs the first STA of presence of the transmission completion time in the first frame (Yu, [0032], Low latency indicator with timing information for the low latency frame, where low latency requiring frames can take precedence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok to include the limitations of wherein the indication of low latency traffic informs the first STA of presence of the transmission completion time in the first frame as taught by Yu. Giving low latency frame or traffic preference ensures communication with greater urgency are completed before other communications.
As to claim 8, Seok discloses the first STA of claim 1. Seok does not disclose however Yu discloses wherein the second frame comprises one or more medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) associated with low latency traffic (YU, [0091], MPDU frame used to indicated low latency as needed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok to include the limitations of wherein the second frame comprises one or more medium access control protocol data unit (MPDU) associated with low latency traffic as taught by Yu. MPDU are frame used in the art when reliability and low latency communications are needed.
As to claims 14, 15 and 17, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 4, 5 and 8 above respectively by Seok in view of Yu.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Sethuraman, Prasanna Kumar, et al, application no. 2022/0007220, hereinafter known as Kumar.
As to claim 10, Seok discloses the first STA of claim 1. Seok does not disclose however Kumar discloses wherein the transmission completion time comprises a delay bound or a medium access control service data unit (MSDU) lifetime (Kumar, [0034], MSDU lifetime as indication for transmission timing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seok to include the limitations of wherein the transmission completion time comprises a delay bound or a medium access control service data unit (MSDU) lifetime as taught by Kumar. MSDU timing provides limit as to time validity of a frame which can serve as timing for transmission since transmission resource would not be needed further after lifetime of a frame.
As to claim 19, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 10 above by Seok in view of Kumar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7182. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 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 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.
/GAUTAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467