DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 has been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings were received on 3/12/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
6. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRIER SENSE MULTIPLE ACCESS WITH COLLISION AVOIDANCE INCLUDING AN INTELLIGENT CHANNEL ACCESS MODE.
7. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 2, 3, 7-9, 12, 13, and 17-19 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.
a) Claim 2, dependent upon claim 1, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 1 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating language may or may not be selected for prosecution. Claim 2 includes limitations further narrowing one of the alternatives, and thus when the other alternative is selected for prosecution, claim 2 is indefinite. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claim 1 or claim 2 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The rejections below have similar issues.
b) Claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 1 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating language may or may not be selected for prosecution. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claims 1, 2, or 3 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
c) Claim 7, dependent upon claim 1, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 1 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating language may or may not be selected for prosecution. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claim 1 or claim 7 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
d) Claim 8, dependent upon claim 7, does not satisfy the deficiencies of the rejected base claim (also comprising alternative language), and is therefore also rejected.
e) Claim 9, dependent upon claim 1, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 1 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating language may or may not be selected for prosecution. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claim 1 or claim 9 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
f) Claim 12, dependent upon claim 11, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 11 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating language may or may not be selected for prosecution. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claim 11 or claim 12 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
g) Claim 13, dependent upon claim 12, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 1 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating language may or may not be selected for prosecution. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claims 11, 12, or 13 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
h) Claim 17, dependent upon claim 11, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 11 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating language may or may not be selected for prosecution. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claim 11 or claim 17 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
i) Claim 18, dependent upon claim 17, does not satisfy the deficiencies of the rejected base claim (also comprising alternative language), and is therefore also rejected.
j) Claim 19, dependent upon claim 11, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 11 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating language may or may not be selected for prosecution. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claim 11 or claim 19 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0251488 A1 to Urban et al. (hereinafter “Urban”).
Regarding Claim 1, Urban discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises:
determining, by a first device, a first channel access manner based on network status information, wherein the first channel access manner is a carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) channel access manner (Urban: [0059] – a first device may determine, based on transmissions in a shared spectrum (network status) to access a channel using CSMA-CA, which is a channel access protocol. See also [0070].) or an intelligent channel access manner, and wherein the intelligent channel access manner is a manner of accessing a channel based on a channel access decision obtained by a neural network (Examiner respectfully notes the limitation is recited to include alternative language not required to be disclosed by the prior art of record. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to positively recite the limitation(s) that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.); and
sending, by the first device, data on a channel in the first channel access manner (Urban: [0059-0060], [0069-0070] – corresponds to determining a transmission schedule using CSMA-CA.).
Regarding Claim 5, Urban discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the first channel access manner based on network status information comprises:
based on a hidden terminal existing in a basic service set (BSS) in which the first device is located, determining, by the first device, that the first channel access manner is the intelligent channel access manner (alternative language); or
based on no hidden terminal existing in the BSS in which the first device is located, determining, by the first device, that the first channel access manner is the CSMA/CA channel access manner (Urban: [0059] – suggested by using CSMA/CA when a hidden node is not transmitting during a time when a first and second device are communicating/transmitting.).
Regarding Claim 6, Urban discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the first channel access manner based on the network status information comprises:
determining, by the first device, a total duration that is in a second preset duration and in which a data packet is transmitted on the channel (A “second present duration” is interpreted as a total duration, since no “first” preset duration is described. Urban: [0040] – corresponds to a duration/window of transmission.); and
based on the total duration being greater than or equal to a fourth threshold, determining, by the first device, that the first channel access manner is the intelligent channel access manner (alternative language); or
based on the total duration being less than the fourth threshold (Interpreted to correspond to a threshold, since no “first”, “second” or “third” threshold is described.), determining, by the first device, that the first channel access manner is the CSMA/CA channel access manner (Urban: [0081] – corresponds to determining a communication protocol, based on a time window (threshold), being at least CSMA/CA.).
Regarding Claim 11, Urban discloses a communication apparatus (Urban: Figure 7 with [0011], [0094-0105]), comprising:
a non-transitory memory comprising instructions (Urban: Figure 7 with [0105] – elements 704, 712); and
one or more processors in communication with the memory (Urban: Figure 7 with [0094-0105] – element 703), wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to facilitate the following being performed by the communication apparatus:
determining a first channel access manner based on network status information, wherein the first channel access manner is a carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) channel access manner (Urban: [0059] – a first device may determine, based on transmissions in a shared spectrum (network status) to access a channel using CSMA-CA, which is a channel access protocol. See also [0070].) or an intelligent channel access manner, and wherein the intelligent channel access manner is a manner of accessing a channel based on a channel access decision obtained by a neural network (Examiner respectfully notes the limitation is recited to include alternative language not required to be disclosed by the prior art of record. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to positively recite the limitation(s) that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.); and
sending data on a channel in the first channel access manner (Urban: [0059-0060], [0069-0070] – corresponds to determining a transmission schedule using CSMA-CA.).
Claims 15-16, dependent upon claim 11, recite similar features as claims 5-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 5-6. Please see above rejections of claim 5-6.
13. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0409963 A1 to Narayanan Thangaraj et al. (hereinafter “Narayanan Thangaraj”).
Regarding Claim 10, Narayanan Thangaraj discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises:
determining, by a second device, first information, wherein the first information comprises a parameter of a neural network and a structure of the neural network (Narayanan Thangaraj: [0012-0013], [0082-0083], [0085-0086] – corresponds to first and second device, comprising artificial intelligence/machine learning components, in which one device sends to the second device training parameters that manipulate or determine a machine learning model. Since the AI component feature (of both devices) includes a machine learning model, information related to the model includes at least deep neural network features. See also [0112-0114] – an existing model (structure) may be fine-tuned to include active, training features, further suggesting a model structure is either known or shared.), or the first information comprises a gradient of a neural network (Narayanan Thangaraj: [0006-0007] – this feature is known to one having ordinary skill in the art as part of learnable parameter for training a neural network. See also [0115-0119].) and a structure of the neural network, and the first information is used by a first device to determine the neural network (Narayanan Thangaraj: [0012-0013], [0082-0083], [0085-0086] – corresponds to first and second device, comprising artificial intelligence/machine learning components, in which one device sends to the second device training parameters that manipulate or determine a machine learning model. Since the AI component feature (of both devices) includes a machine learning model, information related to the model includes at least deep neural network features. See also [0112-0114] – an existing model (structure) may be fine-tuned to include active, training features, further suggesting a model structure is either known or shared.); and
sending, by the second device, a first frame to the first device, wherein the first frame comprises an information element, and the information element comprises the first information (Narayanan Thangaraj: [0115-0119] – in one example, gradient information is communicated between a WTRU (user) and a gNB (base station) using control signaling, a frame type, corresponding to one or more information elements communicated between devices. See also [0146-0152].).
Claim 20, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claim 10, recites similar features as claim 10 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 10. Please see above rejection of claim 10. Narayanan Thangaraj further discloses the apparatus comprising a processor, memory, and medium in at least Figure 1B with [0213].
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 4 and 14 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
15. 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.
16. The prior art made of record (please see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes the following references not by order of relevance, but to include relevant portions Applicant should consider when issuing a response.
US PGPub 2019/0230709 A1 to Li et al. at [0036], [0149], [0227].
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 March 23, 2026