DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/650837 filed on 7/31/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination
Claims 1 and 8-17 are elected with traverse
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2013 complies with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
Restriction Requirement is Made Final
Applicant traverses the restriction requirement mailed 6/2/2026. The restriction requirement pointed out the different groups of pending claims; claims 2-7 (group 1), claims 9-16 (group II) and claims 18-20 (group III).
This is an election of species type restriction. An election of species may be required when there are multiple patentably distinct embodiments of an invention claimed, and where there is a serious burden to the examiner to examine all of them. MPEP 808.01 (a).
Here, claims 1, 8 or 17 are generic claims because the claims are broad and relate to systems, methods and mechanisms for the current IEEE 802.11 systems. The steps or limitations of each of claim 1, 8 or 17 are common to group I, group II and group II (species of claims). Claims 1, 8 and 17 are also broader in scope than any of the dependent claims in that group which require no extra material limitations.
The identified groups above are distinct embodiments of the invention claimed because each is directed to different figures and have distinguishing characteristics. For example, group I (claims 2-7) are directed to type/range of the wireless device that can participate in TxOP including signaling and data type, disclosed in ¶0096. These distinguishing characteristics are classified in H 04 W 74/0808, H 04 L 27/26 and H 04 W 56/001.
Group II (claims 9-16) are directed to contention period and distributed contention procedure, disclosed in Figs. 6A-C. These distinguishing characteristics are classified in H 04 B 7/024 and H 04 W 84/12.
Group III (claims 18-20) are directed to scheduled contention procedure which is different than the contention-based access (EDCA) or procedure. These distinguishing characteristics are classified in H 04 W 74/0816.
Thus, based on the distinguishing characteristics of group I, II and II and different figures, groups I, II and III are distinct embodiments of the invention claimed.
Furthermore, there is a serious burden to the examiner to examine groups I, II and III. Any skilled artisan that is familiar with IEEE 802.11e realizes that the distributed procedure and schedule procedures have different QoS channel access and they differ in how they handle contention for the wireless medium which means that they lijkely require different art search and different art to reject the claims. The same art also does not necessary applies to both procedures. This difference requires different art rejection and adds burden on the Examiner.
The common limitations between group II and III is CCA energy detection procedure (claims 13-14 and 19-20) which still restrictable because both groups fall under the distinct contention produces (distributed or scheduled).
Note that the identified group or species are not obvious variants over one another but only related to the same IEEE 802.11 systems.
Furthermore, searching the different groups using different art for each claim is serious burden to the examiner to examine all of them.
Therefore, since the claims covers so many distinct species, searching would cause unreasonable burden to the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed on 7/31/2026 regarding the restriction requirement have been considered and found unpersuasive. Thus, Examiner maintains the restriction requirement.
a. Applicant argues that the requirement contains no analysis (Remarks p. 10-11). Examiner provides more analysis above.
b. Applicant argues that the claims overlap extensively (Remarks p. 11). Yes, the claims do overlap in that group I, II and II relate to IEEE 802.11 systems. However, restriction is not whether the claims overlap or not it is about whether the claims are directed to distinct emblement or not. The same specification can have many different embodiments that overlap but they restrictable at the same time due to search and burden on Examiner.
c. Applicant requests more details in Remarks p. 13. See above the detailed explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 8, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Cherian et al. (hereinafter Cherian) US 2020/0260488 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 17, Cherian teaches a method for wireless communication by a wireless device, comprising:
transmitting, at a start of a transmit opportunity (TxOP) to one or more wireless devices, signaling indicating that the TxOP includes one or more sub-TxOPs (Fig. 3 & ¶0050-¶0058; FIG. 3 illustrates an example of multi-AP coordination technique 300 that supports sharing an mTXOP 303. In this example, a first AP 110, a second AP 120, and a third AP 130 may participate in sub-TXOP transmissions 325 during a second portion 317 of the mTXOP 303. The the first AP 110 may transmit a multi-AP scheduling trigger [signaling] (which may be referred to as a MAP-Sch-Trigger 310 message));
contending, during a first contention period (CP) preceding a first sub-TxOP of the one or more sub-TxOPs, for access to a medium (¶0050-¶0051 & Fig. 3; Initially, in the contention-based procedure (such as according to an EDCA contention-based channel access procedure), the APs 110, 120, and 130 may contend for ownership of the mTXOP 303 during a contention/countdown window 305. In this example, the first AP 110 may win ownership of the mTXOP 303…first AP 110 may then transmit an mTXOP-allocation message 316. The mTXOP-allocation message 316 may indicate timing or frequency resources (or both) for a plurality of sub-TXOPs 351,352, and 353 (collectively referred to as sub-TXOP transmissions 325) during the second portion 317 of the mTXOP 303);
and transmitting, upon determining that the wireless device can transmit in the first sub-TxOP, data to at least one wireless device of the one or more wireless devices (¶0051 & Fig. 3-351; FIG. 3, the sub-TXOP transmissions 325 use a time-division of the sub-TXOP transmissions 325. For example, the sub-TXOP transmissions 325 may include a first sub-TXOP 351 for the first AP 110, a second sub-TXOP 352 for the second AP 120, and a third sub-TXOP 353 for the third AP 130. As shown in FIG. 3, the sub-TXOPs 351, 352, and 353 may have different durations).
Regarding claim 12, Cherian teaches the processor of claim 8, wherein contending, during the first CP preceding the first sub-TxOP of the one or more sub-TxOPs, for access to the medium comprises the memory being further configured to cause the processor to cause the wireless device to perform operations comprising contending for access to the medium using a distributed contention procedure (¶0050-¶0051 & Fig. 3; Initially, in the contention-based procedure (such as according to an EDCA contention-based channel access procedure [distributed contention procedure]), the APs 110, 120, and 130 may contend for ownership of the mTXOP 303 during a contention/countdown window 305. In this example, the first AP 110 may win ownership of the mTXOP 303…first AP 110 may then transmit an mTXOP-allocation message 316. The mTXOP-allocation message 316 may indicate timing or frequency resources (or both) for a plurality of sub-TXOPs 351,352, and 353 (collectively referred to as sub-TXOP transmissions 325) during the second portion 317 of the mTXOP 303).
Claims 8 and 17 are substantially similar to claims above, thus the same rationale applies.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) US 2023/0413327 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, Cherian teaches the processor of claim 8 and teaches transmission airtime in ¶0008 & ¶0093, but does not expressly teach “padding at an end of first sub-TXOP,” Kim teachings padding filed 1170 in Fig. 6, ¶0099, ¶0169 & ¶0183. Note that the limitation is also suggested from Cherian’s teachings in ¶0049-¶0054 which show continuous sub-TXOP transmissions without large gaps which is similar to the gaps being less or equal to PIFS. The limitation “to avoid an airtime gap greater than a point coordination function (PCF) interframe space (PIFS)” also is interpreted as intend use which is the standard in 802.11 practices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Kim into the system of Cherian in order to transmitting a SU PPDU to a peer STA in a TXOP period allocated by a trigger frame in a wireless LAN system (abstract). Utilizing such teachings provide the receiving station necessary buffer time to process incoming frames and prepare immediate response sequences like a Block Acknowledgement within strict interframe spacing limits (e.g., PIFS/SIFS) (common knowledge).
Claims 10 & 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian in view of Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang) US 2017/0238334 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Cherian teaches the processor of claim 8, but does not expressly teach wherein a duration of the first CP is based on a number of CP units included in the first CP.
Yang teaches wherein a duration of the first CP is based on a number of CP units included in the first CP (obvious from Fig. 3 & ¶0031 because eNB/UE generates a random backoff counter N out of the contention window size q (e.g., N is generated from 0 to q-1)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the system of Cherian in order to obtain a transmitting opportunity (TXOP) for transmitting radio signals onto the shared wireless medium (¶0029). Utilizing such teachings enable the system avoid packet collision occurrence when a device transmits signal under the channel busy condition when the received signal level is higher than a CCA level, e.g., an energy detection (ED) threshold or a preamble detection (PD) threshold. Id.
Regarding claim 13, Cherian teaches the processor of claim 12, wherein using the distributed contention procedure comprises the memory being further configured to cause the processor to cause the wireless device to perform operations but does not expressly teach comprising:
randomly selecting a value in a range between [n_min, n_max], wherein n_min and n_max are indicated via the signaling;
performing, at a first point in time within the first CP, a clear channel assessment (CCA) energy detection procedure;
and determining, based on the value being zero, that the wireless device can transmit in the first sub-TxOP.
Yang teaches comprising: randomly selecting a value in a range between [n_min, n_max], wherein n_min and n_max are indicated via the signaling (Fig. 3 & ¶0031; CCA procedure where the system generates a random counter N between 0 to q-1 [equivalent to n_min, n_max]);
performing, at a first point in time within the first CP, a clear channel assessment (CCA) energy detection procedure (Fig. 3 &¶0031; CCA procedure is applied during a contention window where if the answer is yes, then it goes to step 313 and checks whether the random backoff counter N is equal to zero. If the answer is yes, then it goes to step 304 for transmission);
and determining, based on the value being zero, that the wireless device can transmit in the first sub-TxOP (Fig. 3 & ¶0029-¶0031; to obtain a transmitting opportunity (TXOP) for transmitting radio signals onto the shared wireless medium…CCA procedure is applied where if the answer is yes, then it goes to step 313 and checks whether the random backoff counter N is equal to zero. If the answer is yes, then it goes to step 304 for transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the system of Cherian in order to obtain a transmitting opportunity (TXOP) for transmitting radio signals onto the shared wireless medium (¶0029). Utilizing such teachings enable the system avoid packet collision occurrence when a device transmits signal under the channel busy condition when the received signal level is higher than a CCA level, e.g., an energy detection (ED) threshold or a preamble detection (PD) threshold. Id.
Regarding claim 14, Cherian in view of Yang teaches the processor of claim 13, Yang further teaches the memory being further configured to cause the processor to cause the wireless device to perform operations comprising:
determining, based one at least one of the value not being zero or the energy detected during the CCA energy detection procedure being less than a threshold, that the wireless device cannot transmit in the first sub-TxOP (Fig. 3 & ¶0031; In step 311, the eNB/UE generates a random backoff counter N out of the contention window size q (e.g., N is generated from 0 to q-1). In step 312, the eNB/UE checks whether the wireless channel has been idle for the extended CCA defer period (DeCCA, e.g., 34 us). If the answer is no, then it goes back to step 312; if the answer is yes, then it goes to step 313 and checks whether the random backoff counter N is equal to zero. If the answer is yes, then it goes to step 304 for transmission; if the answer is no, then it goes to step 314 and senses the wireless medium for one eCCA time slot duration T (e.g., T=9 us). In step 315, the eNB/UE checks whether the wireless channel is busy. If the answer is yes, then it goes back to step 312; if the answer is no, then it goes to step 816 and reduces the random backoff counter N by one (e.g., N=N−1), and then goes to step 313 to check whether counter N is equal to zero. Note that based on the ECCA procedure, when the channel is busy, the eNB/UE shall defer transmission until the wireless channel has been determined to be idle for an uninterrupted deferred period);
decreasing the value by one (Fig.3 & ¶0031; If the answer is yes, then it goes back to step 312; if the answer is no, then it goes to step 816 and reduces the random backoff counter N by one (e.g., N=N−1), and then goes to step 313 to check whether counter N is equal to zero. Note that based on the ECCA procedure, when the channel is busy, the eNB/UE shall defer transmission until the wireless channel has been determined to be idle for an uninterrupted deferred period);
and waiting until a next CP to perform an additional CCA energy detection procedure (Fig.3 & ¶0031; If the answer is yes, then it goes back to step 312; if the answer is no, then it goes to step 816 and reduces the random backoff counter N by one (e.g., N=N−1), and then goes to step 313 to check whether counter N is equal to zero. Note that based on the ECCA procedure, when the channel is busy, the eNB/UE shall defer transmission until the wireless channel has been determined to be idle for an uninterrupted deferred period);
and wherein the determining, decreasing, and waiting is performed until at least one of: the value becomes zero; an energy detected during a CCA energy detection procedure is greater than the threshold; or the TxOP ends (Fig.3 & ¶0031; If the answer is yes, then it goes back to step 312; if the answer is no, then it goes to step 816 and reduces the random backoff counter N by one (e.g., N=N−1), and then goes to step 313 to check whether counter N is equal to zero. Note that based on the ECCA procedure, when the channel is busy, the eNB/UE shall defer transmission until the wireless channel has been determined to be idle for an uninterrupted deferred period).
Regarding claim 15, Cherian in view of Yang teaches the processor of claim 13, the memory being further configured to cause the processor to cause the wireless device to perform operations comprising: determining a data transmission failure (Fig. 3 & ¶0031-¶0032; channel is busy [failure]);
and randomly selecting a new value in a range (Fig. 3 & ¶0031-¶0032; it goes back to step 312 if the channel is busy/failure),
wherein, when the wireless device is not an access point, the range is between 2*[n_min, n_max], and wherein, when the wireless device is an access point, the range is between [n_min, n_max-1] (Fig. 3 & ¶0031-¶0032; In step 311, the eNB/UE generates a random backoff counter N out of the contention window size q (e.g., N is generated from 0 to q-1) which means to one with ordinary skill in the art that eNB [access point] has a range of 2 * [0 to q-1] because eNB handles double the TXOP range for upstream and downstream traffic where UE handles only one traffic).
Regarding claim 16, Cherian in view of Yang teaches the processor of claim 13, Yang further teaches the memory being further configured to cause the processor to cause the wireless device to perform operations comprising: determining the first point in time in the first CP based on a number of CP units included in the first CP and a duration of the first CP (obvious from Fig. 3 & ¶0031 because eNB/UE generates a random backoff counter N out of the contention window size q (e.g., N is generated from 0 to q-1)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian in view of Ajami et al. (hereinafter Ajami) US 2023/0049192 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, Cherian teaches the processor of claim 8, but does not expressly teach wherein a duration of the first CP is less than a point coordination function (PCF) interframe space (PIFS).
However, Cherian’s teachings are directed to latency with TxOP which keeping the CP shorter than PCF would be within the skills of one having an ordinary skill in the art. Ajami on the other hand, expressly teaches that CP is shorted than PCF.
Ajami teaches wherein a duration of the first CP is less than a point coordination function (PCF) interframe space (PIFS) (Cherian ¶0199; where a duration between the first time and the start of the restricted TWT SP is less than or equal to a point coordination function (PCF) interframe space (PIFS) duration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Ajami into the system of Cherian in order to ensure that WLANs are able to meet the various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of such low-latency applications (¶0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights