DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/662,867 filed on 5/13/2024. The amendment presented on 7/1/2026, which amends claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 17, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
The amendment presented on 7/1/2026 providing change to the claims is noted. All prior objections to the claims are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. (hereinafter Ajami)(US 2024/0292456) in view of Bravo et al. (hereinafter Bravo)(US 2021/0084667).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Ajami teaches as follows:
An access point (interpreted as the wireless AP 102 in figure 1 and 4) comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and having loaded therein a program which, when executed by the processor (the wireless AP includes at least one memory and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory, see, ¶ [0019])(the wireless communication device 1500 can be a device for use in an AP, such as AP 102 described with reference to FIG. 1… the wireless communication device 1500 also includes or can be coupled with an application processor which may be further coupled with another memory, see, ¶ [0196] and figure 15), is configured to:
send, from an access point (AP), a request-to-send (RTS) frame to a plurality of stations, the AP having a pending transmission opportunity (TxOp), wherein a physical frame containing the RTS frame indicates that the AP allows having its pending TxOp to be preempted by at least one station of the plurality of stations having a TxOp (to share the TXOP duration 404-a (equivalent to applicant’s pending TxOp) with the STA 104-a (equivalent to applicant’s stations), the AP 102 may transmit a first frame 406-a (which may be an example of a TXS frame, such as an MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame)(equivalent to applicant’s RTS frame) to the STA 104-a. To share the TXOP duration 404-b with the STA 104-b, the AP 102 may transmit a second frame 406-b (which may be an example of a TXS frame, such as, but not limited to, an MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame) to the STA 104-b, see, ¶ [0107] and figure 4); and
receive a physical frame containing a clear-to-send (CTS) frame from at least one station of the plurality of stations, wherein the physical frame containing the CTS frame indicates that at least one station is preempting the TxOp of the AP (the STA 104-a may respond to the first frame 406-a by transmitting a CTS frame 408-a, after which the STA 104-a may use the shared TXOP to communicate P2P data 410-a with the peer device 304-a… the STA 104-b may respond to the second frame 406-b by transmitting a CTS frame 408-b, after which the STA 104-b may use the shared TXOP to communicate P2P data 410-b with the peer device 304-b, see, ¶ [0109] and figure 4).
Ajami teaches sharing AP’s TXOP with a plurality of stations as presented above but does not teach the priority based TXOP preempting.
Bravo teaches as follows:
The method 300 may include: S302, broadcasting information about a Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) on a wireless channel, wherein the TXOP comprises two or more transmission durations and a preemption period exists between any two neighboring transmission durations of the two or more transmission durations; and S304, pausing communicating on the wireless channel during the preemption period to give opportunity for one or more stations (STAs) to preempt the wireless channel to transmit high priority traffic (see, ¶ [0039] and figure 3); and
the method 300 may be implemented by an AP STA or a non-AP STA to optimize low latency applications and high throughput applications when the two types of application share the wireless channel. In other words, the method 300 may be implemented by a holder STA of the TXOP, and the holder STA of the TXOP may be an AP STA or a non-AP STA (see, ¶ [0040] and figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami with Bravo to include the well-known preemption mechanism as taught by Bravo in order to efficiently preempt AP’s TxOp for other station with high priority traffic.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, Ajami teaches as follows:
Wherein the RTS frame is a multi-user RTS (MU-RTS) frame (the AP 102 may transmit a first frame 406-a (which may be an example of a TXS frame, such as an MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame) to the STA 104-a, see, ¶ [0107] and figure 4).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. (hereinafter Ajami)(US 2024/0292456) in view of Bravo et al. (hereinafter Bravo)(US 2021/0084667), and further in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang)(US 2024/0188133).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Ajami in view of Bravo does not teach the single user RTS (SU-RTS) frame.
Wang teaches as follows:
The RTS frame may be a single user (SU) RTS (SU-RTS) frame, a multi-user (MU) RTS (MU-RTS) frame, and/or a modified RTS that serves the same/similar function as a SU-RTS frame and/or an MU RTS frame (see, ¶ [0101] and figure 8B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami in view of Bravo with Wang to include the legacy single user (SU) RTS (SU-RTS) frame as taught by Wang in order to efficiently provide a single-user transmission.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. (hereinafter Ajami)(US 2024/0292456) in view of Bravo et al. (hereinafter Bravo)(US 2021/0084667), and further in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang)(US 2019/0141723).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Ajami teaches the example PPDU frame (250 in figure 2) comprising the L-SIG (262 in figure 2)(see, ¶ [0070] and figure 2).
Ajami in view of Bravo teaches all limitations as presented above except for utilizing L-SIF field for indication of TXOP sharing.
Zhang teaches as follows:
The L-SIG field or the data field may indicate whether the reservation duration is X ms or less than X ms. In such an embodiment, a reserving WiFi node may transmit an additional WiFi preamble (e.g., including an STF, an LTF, and an L-SIG field) in the message portion of the channel reservation signal for medium sharing among WiFi nodes (see, ¶ [0032]); and
the L-SIG field 1216 may allow for multiple hypotheses 1220. The L-SIG field 1216 may indicate a predetermined TXOP duration of X ms via a specific hypothesis or a reservation duration that is not X ms with remaining hypotheses (see, ¶ [0101] and figure 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami in view of Bravo with Zhang to include the legacy signal (L-SIG) as taught by Zhang in order to efficiently allocate TXOP medium sharing among multiple stations.
Claims 5, 7-8, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. (hereinafter Ajami)(US 2024/0292456) in view of Bravo et al. (hereinafter Bravo)(US 2021/0084667), and further in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim)(US 2023/0345535).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 19, Ajami in view of Bravo teaches all limitations as presented above except for the interframe space (SIFS).
Kim teaches as follows:
When the channel is idle for a predetermined time right before the channel access restriction is released, the station may immediately reduce the backoff counter without additional sensing. At this time, the predetermined time may be one of a PCF interframe space (PIFS), a short interframe space (SIFS), and an arbitration interframe space (AIFS)(see, ¶ [0161]);
the frame exchange sequence for NAV configuration may include at least one of a request to send (RTS) frame/clear to send (CTS) frame exchange sequence and a multi-user (MU)-RTS frame/CTS frame exchange sequence. In addition, in the frame exchange sequence, an interval between the frames may be an SIFS (see, ¶ [0202]); and
FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) / collision avoidance (CA) method used in wireless LAN communication. A terminal that performs a wireless LAN communication checks whether a channel is busy by performing carrier sensing before transmitting data. When a wireless signal having a predetermined strength or more is sensed, it is determined that the corresponding channel is busy and the terminal delays the access to the corresponding channel. Such a process is referred to as clear channel assessment (CCA) and a level to decide whether the corresponding signal is sensed is referred to as a CCA threshold (see, ¶ [0087]-[0088] and figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami in view of Bravo with Kim to include setting short interframe space (SIFS) interval between frames as taught by Kim in order for efficient frame exchange sequence.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Kim teaches as follows:
Wherein a specially-timed physical frame containing the CTS response frame is sent at a time earlier than the SIFS (the frame exchange sequence for NAV configuration may include at least one of a request to send (RTS) frame/clear to send (CTS) frame exchange sequence and a multi-user (MU)-RTS frame/CTS frame exchange sequence. In addition, in the frame exchange sequence, an interval between the frames may be an SIFS, see, ¶ [0202]).
Therefore, they are rejected for similar reason as presented above.
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 20, Ajami teaches as follows:
Wherein a plurality of slot times following the SIFS are set; wherein each slot time of the plurality of slot times is assigned to a station that has received permission to preempt the pending TxOp of the AP; and wherein each station preempting the pending TxOp of the AP sends a physical frame containing the CTS frame to the AP (AP 102 shares it pending TXOP 404-a with other stations 104-a and 104-b, see, ¶ [0110] and figure 4).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. (hereinafter Ajami)(US 2024/0292456) in view of Bravo et al. (hereinafter Bravo)(US 2021/0084667) and Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim)(US 2023/0345535), and further in view of Ryu et al. (hereinafter Ryu)(US 2024/0056968).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Ajami in view of Bravo and Kim teaches all limitations as presented above except for rotating a sig filed or a data field corresponding to the CTS frame.
Ryu teaches as follows:
The TXOP pre-emption indication is indicated in at least one of the following MAC control header field and/or subfield: a duration field; and/or a duration/id field and a more data subfield (equivalent to applicant’s data field)(see, ¶ [0020]);
FIG. 10D presents an example of the Duration/ID field setting when TXOP preemption is indicated in a CTS frame. When an AP preempts a TXOP by setting the Duration field in a CTS frame to 0, the AP may set the Duration/ID field in the buffered low latency frame or the Trigger frame to a value that protects either the frame exchange sequence for the low latency traffic or the TXOP set by the TXOP holder (see, ¶ [0123] and figure 10D).
Examiner interpreted the limitation of “rotating data field” as changing duration field value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami in view of Bravo and Kim with Ryu to include setting a value for duration field in a CTS frame as taught by Ryu in order to efficiently indicate whether the TxOp holding AP provides the requested TxOp preemption to the requesting station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeong S Park whose telephone number is (571)270-1597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00-4:30 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, Rebecca E Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. 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.
/JEONG S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights