CTNF 18/650,380 CTNF 83643 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 5 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 5 , the Office recommends amending the current phrasing of “with IEEE being an abbreviation of institute of electrical and electronics engineers” to “Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11” or similar phrasing. Regarding Claim 16 , the Office recommends amending the language “an existed link” to “an existing link”. The Office recommends making a similar amendment to paragraphs 0017 and 0058 of the specification . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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. Regarding Claim 1 , the claim recites “when transmitting a PPDU over the wireless network, causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold.” However, it is not clear whether “when transmitting a PPDU” is unclear as to whether the PPDU is, in fact, transmitted, or if the clause is a condition that needs to be satisfied in order for the subsequent clause “causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold” to be required. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-16 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 1. For examination and search purposes, the claims will be addressed as best understood by the Office. Further regarding Claim 7 , the claim recites “when causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold”. However, presuming that the PPDU is transmitted in Claim 1, “causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold” is already performed. This later recitation in Claim 7 is therefore unclear as to whether the “causing the PPDU…” clause is now considered to be a condition on which the subsequent step “causing a reference duration…” relies. Further regarding Claim 8 , the claim recites the same clause (“when transmitting the PPDU”) as Claim 1 and is found to be indefinite for the same reasons as presented above. Further regarding Claim 9 , the claim recites “after transmitting the PPDU,” which presumes the PPDU is transmitted; however, Claim 1, on which Claim 9 depends, does not clearly indicate that the PPDU is transmitted. Therefore, Claim 9 is indefinite as the language refers to a step that is not required to take place. Further regarding Claim 11 , the claim recites “transmitting the PPDU is executed after a preceding frame is transmitted,” which presumes the PPDU is transmitted; however, Claim 1, on which Claim 11 depends, does not clearly indicate that the PPDU is transmitted (or that the PPDU transmission is executed). Therefore, Claim 11 is indefinite as the language refers to a step that is not required to take place. Further, the claim recites “when causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold”. However, presuming that the PPDU is transmitted in Claim 1, “causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold” is already performed. This later recitation in Claim 7 is therefore unclear as to whether the “causing the PPDU…” clause is now considered to be a condition on which the subsequent step “causing a reference duration…” relies. Claim 12 recites similar language to Claim 11 and is rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons. Further regarding Claim 13 , the claim recites a “latency improvement”, but does not detail what the latency improvement comprises. As such, the Office interprets this phrase as a relative term (due to the presence of the word “improvement”). The term “latency improvement” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although several portions of the specification refer to enabling a “latency improvement”, there is no further description as to what the latency improvement comprises. Claims 14-16 , which also recite “latency improvement,” are further rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 13. Claim 17 also recites the language “latency improvement” and is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 13. Claims 18-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 17. For examination and search purposes, the claims will be addressed as best understood by the Office. Further regarding Claim 14 , the phrase “not restricting a duration of the PPDU” appears to refer back to claim language “causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold” in Claim 1. However, if the step is already performed above (contingent on the PPDU being transmitted as noted in the rejection of Claim 1), then the step of “not restricting a duration of the PPDU” contradicts the earlier step of causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold. Further regarding Claims 15 and 16 , the claim language recites “when transmitting the PPDU,” similar to Claim 1, and is rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons as presented above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6, 10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0354426), hereinafter Lu . Regarding Claim 1 , Lu discloses a method for improving latency of a wireless network; the method being executed by a device of the wireless network (Figure 1, the communication system includes access point 110 and stations 120), and the method comprising: configuring a duration threshold according to a latency requirement (Figure 6 and paragraph 0206 – the processing unit of an AP determine whether a target station (STA) is allowed to transmit a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) within a target duration before a start time of a next low-latency service period (SP) in a Basic Service Set (BSS)); and when transmitting a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over the wireless network, causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold (Figure 6 and paragraphs 0068-0072 – the STA transmits a first PPDU that is shorter than the target duration before the start time of the next low-latency SP). Regarding Claim 2 , Lu discloses the latency requirement is obtained by handshaking with one or more other devices of the wireless network (paragraph 0043 – timetables are negotiated (i.e., handshake) by the STA and AP). Regarding Claim 3 , Lu discloses the latency requirement is received from one or more other devices of the wireless network (paragraph 0043 – timetables are negotiated by the STA and AP). Regarding Claim 4 , Lu discloses the latency requirement includes a tolerable latency (Figures 6 and 7 – the access point determines whether a target station is allowed to transmit a PPDU within a target duration before a start time of a low-latency service period); and when configuring the duration threshold according to the latency requirement, causing the duration threshold not to be longer than the tolerable latency (Figure 6 and paragraphs 0068-0072 – the STA transmits a first PPDU that is shorter than the target duration before the start time of the next low-latency SP). Regarding Claim 6 , Lu discloses the device is a Wi-Fi access point (AP) (Figure 1, access point 110) or hot spot ( Note : this is claimed in the alternative). Regarding Claim 10 , Lu discloses the device is a non-AP station (Figure 1, stations 120). Regarding Claim 13 , Lu discloses determining whether to enable a latency improvement before causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold (Figure 4 and paragraphs 0048-0049, the AP determines a start time of a low latency service period (SP)); wherein: causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold is executed if the latency improvement is enabled (Figure 4 – STA1 transmits a low-latency PPDU in the low-latency SP). Regarding Claim 14 , Lu discloses not restricting a duration of the PPDU according to the duration threshold if the latency improvement is not enabled (Figure 4 – STA2 acquires a TXOP that is not subject to low-latency restrictions and transmits a regular PPDU). Regarding Claim 15 , Lu discloses when transmitting the PPDU, transmitting the PPDU via a dedicated link which is initialized after determining to enable the latency improvement (Figure 4 – STA1 initializes transmission of a low-latency PPDU in the low-latency SP after a delay). Regarding Claim 16 , Lu discloses when transmitting the PPDU, transmitting the PPDU via an existed link which exists before determining whether to enable the latency improvement (Figure 4 – STA2 acquires a TXOP that is not subject to low-latency restrictions and commences transmission of a regular PPDU prior to the low-latency SP starting) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 7-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Kim et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0217521), hereinafter Kim . Regarding Claim 5 , Lu discloses the limitations of Claim 4, as set forth above. However, Lu does not disclose the tolerable latency is shorter than a parameter aPPDUMaxTime specified in IEEE 802.11, with IEEE being an abbreviation of institute of electrical and electronics engineers. In an analogous art, Kim discloses this. Specifically, Kim discloses, at paragraph 0287, a channel access restriction time may be configured based on a maximum length of a PPDU. For example, the channel access restriction time may be Max PPDU (aPPDUMaxTime) + SIFS + BAtime. In this case, Max PPDU (aPPDUMaxTime) indicates a maximum length of a PPDU. In addition, BAtime indicates a time required to transmit a BA frame. For example, when a maximum length of a HE PPDU among the maximum length of the PPDU supported by the station is largest, the Max PPDU (aPPDUMaxTime) may be 5.484 ms. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lu and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent transmission collisions (refer to paragraph 0287). Regarding Claim 7 , Lu discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as set forth above. However, Lu does not disclose the PPDU is followed by a follow-up frame transmitted after an interframe space elapses; when causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold, causing a reference duration not to be longer than the duration threshold; and the reference duration is a sum of a duration of the PPDU, the interframe space and a duration of the follow-up frame. In an analogous art, Kim discloses this. Specifically, Kim discloses, at Figure 34 and paragraph 0285, a duration of a TXOP encompassing the TX PPDU (and corresponding PPDU), an SIFS, and a block ACK (BA) frame (i.e., follow-up frame)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lu and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent transmission collisions (refer to paragraph 0287). Regarding Claim 8 , Lu discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as set forth above. However, Lu does not disclose when transmitting the PPDU, transmitting the PPDU using a first resource unit, and causing another device of the wireless network to transmit using a second resource unit during the PPDU. In an analogous art, Kim discloses this. Specifically, Kim discloses, at Figure 34 and paragraphs 0285-0287, a second AP transmitting PPDUs to other stations while the first AP transmits during its TXOP. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lu and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent transmission collisions (refer to paragraph 0287). Regarding Claim 9 , Lu discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as set forth above. Lu further discloses transmitting the PPDU is executed during a transmission opportunity (Figure 6 and paragraph 0064). However, Lu does not disclose the method further comprises: after transmitting the PPDU, causing another device of the wireless network to transmit a second PPDU during the transmission opportunity, and causing said another device to cause the second PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold when said another device transmits the second PPDU. In an analogous art, Kim discloses this. Specifically, Kim discloses, at Figure 34 and paragraphs 0285-0287, a second AP transmitting PPDUs to other stations while the first AP transmits during its TXOP, where the maximum length of the PPDU is set according to aPPDUMaxTime. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lu and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent transmission collisions (refer to paragraph 0287). Regarding Claim 11 , Lu discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as set forth above. However, Lu does not disclose transmitting the PPDU is executed after a preceding frame is transmitted and an interframe space elapses; and when causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold, causing a reference duration not to be longer than the duration threshold; and the reference duration is a sum of a duration of the preceding frame, the interframe space and a duration of the PPDU. In an analogous art, Kim discloses this. Specifically, Kim discloses, at Figure 34 and paragraph 0285, a duration of a TXOP encompassing the TX PPDU (and corresponding PPDU), an SIFS, and a block ACK (BA) frame. Further, Kim discloses, in Figure 36, that subsequent PPDU transmissions are separated by SIFS. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lu and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent transmission collisions (refer to paragraph 0287). Regarding Claim 12 , Lu discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as set forth above. However, Lu does not disclose transmitting the PPDU is executed after a preceding frame is transmitted and a first interframe space elapses; and the PPDU is followed by a follow-up frame transmitted after a second interframe space elapses; when causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold, causing a reference duration not to be longer than the duration threshold; and the reference duration is a sum of a duration of the preceding frame, the first interframe space, a duration of the PPDU, the second interframe space and a duration of the follow-up frame. In an analogous art, Kim discloses this. Specifically, Kim discloses, at Figure 34 and paragraph 0285, a duration of a TXOP encompassing the TX PPDU (and corresponding PPDU), an SIFS, and a block ACK (BA) frame (i.e., follow-up frame)). Further, Kim discloses, in Figure 36, that subsequent PPDU transmissions are separated by SIFS. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lu and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent transmission collisions (refer to paragraph 0287) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lu . Regarding Claim 17 , Kim discloses a network circuit for a device of a wireless network (Figure 3); the network circuit comprising: a physical layer (PHY) circuit arranged to transmit a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) over the wireless network (paragraphs 0075 and 0081 – the station comprises a physical layer interface (e.g., the communication unit 120 in Figure 3) for PPDU transmission); and a medium access control (MAC) circuit coupled to the PHY circuit (paragraph 0075 – the station performs MAC control according to IEEE 802.11 standard; paragraph 0084 – the station comprises a processor for accessing the network via the access point). However, Kim does not disclose the circuit arranged to: cause the PPDU not to be longer than a duration threshold if a latency improvement is enabled; and not restrict a duration of the PPDU by the duration threshold if the latency improvement is not enabled. In an analogous art, Lu discloses this. Specifically, Lu discloses, at Figure 4, STA1 transmitting a low-latency PPDU in the low-latency SP and transmitting a regular PPDU prior to the low-latency SP commencing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim and Lu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent transmission collisions (refer to paragraph 0287 of Kim) and relieve contention between stations (refer to paragraph 0002 of Lu). Regarding Claim 18 , the combination of Kim and Lu further discloses the duration threshold is configured according to a latency requirement received from another device of the wireless network (paragraph 0043 of Lu – timetables are negotiated by the STA and AP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Kim and Lu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent transmission collisions (refer to paragraph 0287 of Kim) and relieve contention between stations (refer to paragraph 0002 of Lu). Regarding Claim 19 , Kim discloses the PPDU is followed by a follow-up frame transmitted after an interframe space elapses; the MAC circuit is arranged to: when causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold, cause a reference duration, which is a sum of a duration of the PPDU, the interframe space and a duration of the follow-up frame, not to be longer than the duration threshold (Figure 34 and paragraph 0285, a duration of a TXOP encompassing the TX PPDU (and corresponding PPDU), an SIFS, and a block ACK (BA) frame (i.e., follow-up frame)). Regarding Claim 20 , Kim discloses the PHY circuit is further arranged to transmit the PPDU after the PHY circuit receives a preceding frame and an interframe space elapses; and the MAC circuit is arranged to: when causing the PPDU not to be longer than the duration threshold, cause a reference duration, which is a sum of a duration of the preceding frame, the interframe space and a duration of the PPDU, not to be longer than the duration threshold (Figure 34 and paragraph 0285 – a duration of a TXOP encompassing the TX PPDU (and corresponding PPDU), an SIFS, and a block ACK (BA) frame (i.e., follow-up frame); Figure 36, that subsequent PPDU transmissions are separated by SIFS) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Verenzuela et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2026/0052590) discloses estimating a PPDU duration based on a minimum amount of data that satisfies latency requirements and PHY configuration parameters (paragraphs 0096-0099). Malichenko et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0163871) discloses selecting a PPDU length based on latency requirements (Figure 4). Chu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0064800) discloses announcing a maximal PPDU length in a BSS that supports low latency preemption (paragraph 0010). Das et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0239844) discloses instructing a non-AP regarding PPDU duration limits and low latency criteria (paragraph 0167 and Figure 5). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET. 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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. /ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 2 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 3 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 4 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 5 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 6 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 7 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 8 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 9 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 10 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 11 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 12 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 14 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 15 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/650,380 Page 16 Art Unit: 2472
Prosecution Insights