DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant first office action is in response to communication filed on 02/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, 9 and 17 are the base independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shafin et al (US 2022/0361194).
Regarding claim 1, 9 and 17, Shafin’194 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first device(i.e. restricted TWT scheduling AP, see fig.2A, Ap with transceiver 209 and controlle/processor 224 configured to ) from a second device(i.e. restricted TWT scheduled STA, fig.2B, STA with transceiver 210 and processor 240), an indication for terminating a target wake time (TWT) service period (SP)(see para.0070, which discusses a restricted TWT scheduled STA as second device… can send explicit signaling to the corresponding restricted TWT scheduling AP as first device indicating that the restricted TWT scheduled STA is done with transmitting UL traffic for a restricted TWT SP. This signaling indicates to the restricted TWT scheduling AP that the restricted TWT scheduled STA is ready for the termination of the corresponding restricted TWT SP);
determining, by the first device, a status of downlink traffic for transmission to the second device(see para.0070, which discuses if the restricted TWT scheduling AP is also done with transmitting downlink traffic for that restricted TWT scheduled STA for that restricted TWT SP, thus a status of downlink traffic for transmission to the second device, see para.0075);
transmitting, by the first device to the second device, an SP termination notification (see para.0079, which discusses a restricted TWT scheduling AP can transmit a TWT SP Termination Ready frame or TWT SP Termination Ready element to the restricted TWT scheduled STA to indicate that the AP is done transmitting latency-sensitive downlink traffic for that restricted TWT scheduled STA and that the AP is ready for termination of a restricted TWT SP if the corresponding restricted TWT scheduled STA is also done transmitting latency-sensitive uplink traffic for that restricted TWT SP, thus termination notification, see para.0008-0010)according to the status of the downlink traffic(see para.0070, which discuses if the restricted TWT scheduling AP is also done with transmitting downlink traffic for that restricted TWT scheduled STA for that restricted TWT SP, thus a status of downlink traffic for transmission to the second device, see para.0075) and the indication(see para.0070, which discusses a restricted TWT scheduled STA as second device… can send explicit signaling to the corresponding restricted TWT scheduling AP as first device…this signaling indicates to the restricted TWT scheduling AP that the restricted TWT scheduled STA is ready for the termination of the corresponding restricted TWT SP); and
terminating, by the first device, the TWT SP (see para.0070, which discusses the restricted TWT scheduling AP can terminate the restricted TWT SP for that restricted TWT scheduled STA, see para.0096, see claim 9)according to the SP termination notification(see para.0079, which discusses a restricted TWT scheduling AP can transmit a TWT SP Termination Ready frame or TWT SP Termination Ready element to the restricted TWT scheduled STA to indicate that the AP is done transmitting latency-sensitive downlink traffic for that restricted TWT scheduled STA and that the AP is ready for termination of a restricted TWT SP if the corresponding restricted TWT scheduled STA is also done transmitting latency-sensitive uplink traffic for that restricted TWT SP, thus termination notification, see para.0008-0010.
Regarding claim 2, 10, Shafin’194 discloses wherein the first device comprises an access point and the second device comprises a station(see para.0070, which discusses a restricted TWT scheduled STA as second device that is a member of a restricted TWT schedule can send explicit signaling to the corresponding restricted TWT scheduling AP as first device…).
Regarding claim 3, 11, Shafin’194 discloses wherein determining the status of the downlink traffic comprises: determining, by the first device, an absence of remaining or(due to or language, only one of them is being considered) additional downlink traffic for transmission to the second device(see para.00008, which discusses lack of latency-sensitive uplink traffic for transmission by the STA and a lack of latency-sensitive downlink traffic for reception by the STA in a remainder of the restricted TWT SP, see para.0098), wherein the SP termination notification is transmitted according to the absence(see para.0008, which discusses receive, from an access point (AP), an indication that the restricted TWT SP is terminated early based …a lack of latency-sensitive downlink traffic for reception by the STA in a remainder of the restricted TWT SP, see para.0098, see para.0057-0058).
Regarding claim 4, 12, Shafin’194 discloses wherein determining the status of the downlink traffic comprises: determining, by the first device, a presence of remaining or additional downlink traffic for transmission to the second device(see abs & see para.0009, which discuses receive latency-sensitive downlink traffic in a restricted TWT service period (SP) during restricted TWT operation, see para.0070, which discuses if the restricted TWT scheduling AP is also done with transmitting downlink traffic for that restricted TWT scheduled STA for that restricted TWT SP, see para.0075, determine presence to if the restricted TWT scheduling AP is also done with transmitting downlink traffic).
Regarding claim 5, 13, 18, Shafin’194 discloses transmitting, by the first device to the second device, the downlink traffic(see para.0009, which discusses an AP device is provided, comprising a transceiver and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver. The transceiver is configured to transmit latency-sensitive downlink traffic and receive latency-sensitive uplink traffic in a restricted TWT SP during restricted TWT operation), wherein the SP termination notification is transmitted responsive(see para.0009, which discusses to transmit, to a STA, an indication that the restricted TWT SP is terminated early based on a lack of latency-sensitive uplink traffic for transmission by the STA and a lack of latency-sensitive downlink traffic for reception by the STA in a remainder of the restricted TWT SP) to transmission of the downlink traffic(see para.0009, which discusses an AP device is provided, comprising a transceiver and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver. The transceiver is configured to transmit latency-sensitive downlink traffic and receive latency-sensitive uplink traffic in a restricted TWT SP during restricted TWT operation).
Regarding claim 6, 14, 19, Shafin’194 discloses wherein the first device receives the indication as a defined value in a buffer status report (BSR) from the second device(see para.0057, which discusses the scheduled STA can send a buffer status report (BSR) to the scheduling AP in order to specify its buffer status. The queue size/value for latency-sensitive TIDs contained in the BSR can indicate to the AP whether the STA's buffer for latency-sensitive traffic is empty).
Regarding claim 7, 15, 20, Shafin’194 discloses wherein the defined value comprises a predetermined value of a queue size of the BSR(see para.0057, which discusses the scheduled STA can send a buffer status report (BSR) to the scheduling AP in order to specify its buffer status. The queue size/value for latency-sensitive TIDs contained in the BSR can indicate to the AP whether the STA's buffer for latency-sensitive traffic is empty).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al (US 2022/0361194) and further in view of Guignard et al (US 12,490,144).
Regarding claim 8, 16, as discussed above, although Shafin’194 discloses wherein the defined value comprises a predetermined value of a queue size of the BSR(see para.0057, which discusses the scheduled STA can send a buffer status report (BSR) to the scheduling AP in order to specify its buffer status. The queue size/value for latency-sensitive TIDs contained in the BSR can indicate to the AP whether the STA's buffer for latency-sensitive traffic is empty), Shafin’194 does not explicitly show the use of “a predetermined combination of values, corresponding to an access category (ACI) bitmap field and a delta traffic identifier (TID) field” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “a predetermined combination of values, corresponding to an access category (ACI) bitmap field and a delta traffic identifier (TID) field” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Guignard’144.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Guignard’144 teaches the use of a predetermined combination of values, corresponding to an access category (ACI) bitmap field and a delta traffic identifier (TID) field(see claim 1, which discusses roviding, in a frame sent to a central station, a Buffer Status Report, BSR, control field reporting a status of buffered data, wherein a number of traffic identifiers for which there is buffered uplink, UL, traffic, is signaled using an Access Control Identifier, ACI, Bitmap subfield and a Delta Traffic Identifier, TID, subfield in the BSR control field, wherein one or more values from amongst values 0, 1 and 2 are used in the Delta TID subfield to signal buffered direct link, DiL, traffic when the ACI Bitmap subfield has no bit set to 1, and wherein one of the values is used in the Delta TID subfield to signal buffered DiL traffic when there is no buffered UL traffic and another separate value is used in the Delta TID subfield to signal buffered DiL traffic when there is buffered UL traffic for all traffic identifiers).
In view of the above, having the system of Shafin’194 and then given the well-established teaching of Guignard’144, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shafin’194” to include “a predetermined combination of values, corresponding to an access category (ACI) bitmap field and a delta traffic identifier (TID) field” as taught by Guignard’144, since Guignard’144 stated in col.2, lines 37+ that such a modification would provide a system that is efficient because the managing peer station usually has knowledge of the communication needs of the other peer station.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINNCELAS LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5138. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/VINNCELAS LOUIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474