DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 04/24/2024 in which claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending. Claim 15 was cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2024, 02/27/2025, 08/14/2025 and 11/06/2025 have been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11-13 and 18-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2008/0171550) in view of Ramos et al. (US 2008/0095124), hereinafter “Ramos” and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2013/0100952), hereinafter “Hart”.
As to claim 1, Zhao teaches a data transmission method, comprising:
entering, by an Access Point (AP) (Zhao, Figs. 2A-2B, the AP 205/265), an enhanced Hybrid Coordination Function Controlled Channel Access (HCCA) mode (Zhao, Fig. 7, [0079], “CFP is needed…the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 in step 745 moves a portion of one or more EDCA traffic classes or all of one or more EDCA traffic classes, e.g., all voice traffic and/or all video traffic, to the CFP to operate in HCCA mode”) when determining that data transmission under an Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) mode does not satisfy a low delay requirement (Zhao, Fig. 7, [0077], “the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 calculates a normalized network congestion index in time period T, and compares the network congestion index with upper and lower thresholds. In one embodiment, when the network congestion index is above the upper threshold, then the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 determines that additional CFP may be needed”. [0049], “By dynamically monitoring network congestion and effecting CFP/CP adaptation, it is possible to support video (e.g., HDTV video) distribution in WLAN with high throughput, low latency and low jitter”).
Zhao teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 1, wherein under the enhanced HCCA mode, the AP broadcasts a target frame to all Stations (STAs) comprised in a target Base Station Subsystem (BSS), so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy a first Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) for data transmission;
after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission, repeating, by the AP, the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission, until the AP completes the data transmission; and
after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has completed the data transmission, entering, by the AP, a Contend Period (CP) of data transmission.
However, Ramos teaches wherein under the enhanced HCCA mode, the AP broadcasts a target frame to all Stations (STAs) (Ramos, [0036], “During the HCCA contention-free period, the AP polls nodes for a fixed time duration, called TXOP, which is computed based on reservation information periodically sent to the AP by each of the flows. The TXOP for each node is initiated by a poll request from the AP and during this period, transmissions can occur in both the uplink and downlink directions”) comprised in a target Base Station Subsystem (BSS) (Ramos, [0083], “each node is associated with only one flow and remains at fixed location that is distributed uniformly in the area of 300 mx300 m, i.e. the range of an access point”), so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy a first Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) for data transmission (Ramos, [0036], “The TXOP for each node is initiated by a poll request from the AP and during this period, transmissions can occur in both the uplink and downlink directions”); and
after the first TXOP ends (Ramos, Fig. 1, a TXOP l ends in the HCCA mode), in a case where it is determined that the AP has completed the data transmission (Ramos, [0008], “…the access point in the HCCA period and has completed assigned communication with the access point in HCCA…”), entering, by the AP, a Contend Period (CP) of data transmission (Ramos, [0008], “prioritized contention-based Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA)”, Fig. 1 shows entering the EDCA mode after the TXOP l of the HCCA mode for data transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao to have the features, as taught by Ramos, in order to dynamically control communications between wireless devices and an access point in a wireless local area network (WLAN) to enhance the quality of service (QoS) (Ramos, [0006]).
Zhao and Ramos teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao and Ramos do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 1, after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission, repeating, by the AP, the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission, until the AP completes the data transmission.
However, Hart teaches after the first TXOP ends (Hart, Fig. 8, [0070], “after the first TXOP expires”), in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0071], “the AP waits for a time interval before sending additional data”), repeating, by the AP, the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0070], “multiple TXOPs may be employed for sending the multicast data…the AP sends a frame specifying a TXOP for a second (subsequent) TXOP. For example, after the first TXOP expires, a Duration field in the header of the next multicast frame may specify a length of the next TXOP”), until the AP completes the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0072], “the channel is reserved for a second TXOP. In the illustrated example, this TXOP is employed for…sending additional multicast frames…if there was insufficient time in the first TXOP”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and Ramos to have the features, as taught by Hart, in order to allow the AP to send additional multicast frames during a second TXOP if there was insufficient time in the first TXOP (Hart, [0072]).
Zhao teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 9, further comprising:
determining that the data transmission under the EDCA mode satisfies the low delay requirement; and
switching from the enhanced HCCA mode to the EDCA mode, and performing the data transmission under the EDCA mode.
As to claim 9, Ramos teaches further comprising:
determining that the data transmission under the EDCA mode satisfies the low delay requirement (Ramos, [0008], “The communication delay at each node in communication with the access point is monitored and the traffic load at the access point for communications with nodes in the EDCA period is also monitored”. Table 5 shows that in EDCA the delay is lower when adapting the flows to EDCA. [0090], “the load in EDCA can support additional flows”); and
switching from the enhanced HCCA mode to the EDCA mode, and performing the data transmission under the EDCA mode (Ramos, [0008], “The access of nodes to the access point is dynamically controlled according to the monitored communication delays of nodes and the monitored traffic load. This dynamic control includes at least one of the following:…(2) assigning a selected node which has been previously assigned to communicate with the access point in the HCCA period and has completed assigned communication with the access point in HCCA, after the HCCA period terminates, to continue communicating with the access point in the EDCA period in contention with other nodes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao to have the features, as taught by Ramos, in order to dynamically control communications between wireless devices and an access point in a wireless local area network (WLAN) to enhance the quality of service (QoS) (Ramos, [0006]).
As to claim 16, Zhao teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when being executed by a processor in an Access Point (AP) (Zhao, Figs. 2A-2B, the AP 205/265. Figs. 3-4, [0050]-[0051], the AP includes a memory stores software executed by the processor to perform the functions of the AP), causes the processor to implement the following operations:
entering an enhanced Hybrid Coordination Function Controlled Channel Access (HCCA) mode (Zhao, Fig. 7, [0079], “CFP is needed…the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 in step 745 moves a portion of one or more EDCA traffic classes or all of one or more EDCA traffic classes, e.g., all voice traffic and/or all video traffic, to the CFP to operate in HCCA mode”) when determining that data transmission under an Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) mode does not satisfy a low delay requirement (Zhao, Fig. 7, [0077], “the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 calculates a normalized network congestion index in time period T, and compares the network congestion index with upper and lower thresholds. In one embodiment, when the network congestion index is above the upper threshold, then the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 determines that additional CFP may be needed”. [0049], “By dynamically monitoring network congestion and effecting CFP/CP adaptation, it is possible to support video (e.g., HDTV video) distribution in WLAN with high throughput, low latency and low jitter”).
Zhao teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 16, wherein under the enhanced HCCA mode, the AP broadcasts a target frame to all Stations (STAs) comprised in a target Base Station Subsystem (BSS), so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy a first Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) for data transmission;
after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission, repeating the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission, until the AP completes the data transmission; and
after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has completed the data transmission, entering a Contend Period (CP) of data transmission.
However, Ramos teaches wherein under the enhanced HCCA mode, the AP broadcasts a target frame to all Stations (STAs) (Ramos, [0036], “During the HCCA contention-free period, the AP polls nodes for a fixed time duration, called TXOP, which is computed based on reservation information periodically sent to the AP by each of the flows. The TXOP for each node is initiated by a poll request from the AP and during this period, transmissions can occur in both the uplink and downlink directions”) comprised in a target Base Station Subsystem (BSS) (Ramos, [0083], “each node is associated with only one flow and remains at fixed location that is distributed uniformly in the area of 300 mx300 m, i.e. the range of an access point”), so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy a first Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) for data transmission (Ramos, [0036], “The TXOP for each node is initiated by a poll request from the AP and during this period, transmissions can occur in both the uplink and downlink directions”); and
after the first TXOP ends (Ramos, Fig. 1, a TXOP l ends in the HCCA mode), in a case where it is determined that the AP has completed the data transmission (Ramos, [0008], “…the access point in the HCCA period and has completed assigned communication with the access point in HCCA…”), entering a Contend Period (CP) of data transmission (Ramos, [0008], “prioritized contention-based Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA)”, Fig. 1 shows entering the EDCA mode after the TXOP l of the HCCA mode for data transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao to have the features, as taught by Ramos, in order to dynamically control communications between wireless devices and an access point in a wireless local area network (WLAN) to enhance the quality of service (QoS) (Ramos, [0006]).
Zhao and Ramos teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao and Ramos do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 16, after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission, repeating the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission, until the AP completes the data transmission.
However, Hart teaches after the first TXOP ends (Hart, Fig. 8, [0070], “after the first TXOP expires”), in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0071], “the AP waits for a time interval before sending additional data”), repeating the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0070], “multiple TXOPs may be employed for sending the multicast data…the AP sends a frame specifying a TXOP for a second (subsequent) TXOP. For example, after the first TXOP expires, a Duration field in the header of the next multicast frame may specify a length of the next TXOP”), until the AP completes the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0072], “the channel is reserved for a second TXOP. In the illustrated example, this TXOP is employed for…sending additional multicast frames…if there was insufficient time in the first TXOP”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and Ramos to have the features, as taught by Hart, in order to allow the AP to send additional multicast frames during a second TXOP if there was insufficient time in the first TXOP (Hart, [0072]).
As to claim 17, Zhao teaches an electronic apparatus provided in an Access Point (AP) (Zhao, Figs. 2A-2B, the AP 205/265. Figs. 3-4, [0050]-[0051], the AP), comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to implement the following operations (Zhao, Figs. 2A-2B, the AP 205/265. Figs. 3-4, [0050]-[0051], the AP includes a memory stores software executed by the processor to perform the functions of the AP):
entering an enhanced Hybrid Coordination Function Controlled Channel Access (HCCA) mode (Zhao, Fig. 7, [0079], “CFP is needed…the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 in step 745 moves a portion of one or more EDCA traffic classes or all of one or more EDCA traffic classes, e.g., all voice traffic and/or all video traffic, to the CFP to operate in HCCA mode”) when determining that data transmission under an Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) mode does not satisfy a low delay requirement (Zhao, Fig. 7, [0077], “the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 calculates a normalized network congestion index in time period T, and compares the network congestion index with upper and lower thresholds. In one embodiment, when the network congestion index is above the upper threshold, then the CP/CFP adaptation module 410 determines that additional CFP may be needed”. [0049], “By dynamically monitoring network congestion and effecting CFP/CP adaptation, it is possible to support video (e.g., HDTV video) distribution in WLAN with high throughput, low latency and low jitter”).
Zhao teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 17, wherein under the enhanced HCCA mode, the AP broadcasts a target frame to all Stations (STAs) comprised in a target Base Station Subsystem (BSS), so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy a first Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) for data transmission;
after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission, repeating the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission, until the AP completes the data transmission; and
after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has completed the data transmission, entering a Contend Period (CP) of data transmission.
However, Ramos teaches wherein under the enhanced HCCA mode, the AP broadcasts a target frame to all Stations (STAs) (Ramos, [0036], “During the HCCA contention-free period, the AP polls nodes for a fixed time duration, called TXOP, which is computed based on reservation information periodically sent to the AP by each of the flows. The TXOP for each node is initiated by a poll request from the AP and during this period, transmissions can occur in both the uplink and downlink directions”) comprised in a target Base Station Subsystem (BSS) (Ramos, [0083], “each node is associated with only one flow and remains at fixed location that is distributed uniformly in the area of 300 mx300 m, i.e. the range of an access point”), so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy a first Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) for data transmission (Ramos, [0036], “The TXOP for each node is initiated by a poll request from the AP and during this period, transmissions can occur in both the uplink and downlink directions”); and
after the first TXOP ends (Ramos, Fig. 1, a TXOP l ends in the HCCA mode), in a case where it is determined that the AP has completed the data transmission (Ramos, [0008], “…the access point in the HCCA period and has completed assigned communication with the access point in HCCA…”), entering a Contend Period (CP) of data transmission (Ramos, [0008], “prioritized contention-based Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA)”, Fig. 1 shows entering the EDCA mode after the TXOP l of the HCCA mode for data transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao to have the features, as taught by Ramos, in order to dynamically control communications between wireless devices and an access point in a wireless local area network (WLAN) to enhance the quality of service (QoS) (Ramos, [0006]).
Zhao and Ramos teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao and Ramos do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 17, after the first TXOP ends, in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission, repeating the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission, until the AP completes the data transmission.
However, Hart teaches after the first TXOP ends (Hart, Fig. 8, [0070], “after the first TXOP expires”), in a case where it is determined that the AP has not completed the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0071], “the AP waits for a time interval before sending additional data”), repeating the operation of broadcasting the target frame to all the STAs so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy other TXOP for the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0070], “multiple TXOPs may be employed for sending the multicast data…the AP sends a frame specifying a TXOP for a second (subsequent) TXOP. For example, after the first TXOP expires, a Duration field in the header of the next multicast frame may specify a length of the next TXOP”), until the AP completes the data transmission (Hart, Fig. 8, [0072], “the channel is reserved for a second TXOP. In the illustrated example, this TXOP is employed for…sending additional multicast frames…if there was insufficient time in the first TXOP”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and Ramos to have the features, as taught by Hart, in order to allow the AP to send additional multicast frames during a second TXOP if there was insufficient time in the first TXOP (Hart, [0072]).
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2008/0171550) in view of Ramos et al. (US 2008/0095124), hereinafter “Ramos” and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2013/0100952), hereinafter “Hart” and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0139699), hereinafter “Choi”.
Zhao, Ramos and Hart teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao, Ramos and Hart do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 2, wherein before the AP broadcasts the target frame to all the STAs comprised in the target BSS, the data transmission method further comprises determining, by the AP, that the data transmission under the EDCA mode does not satisfy the low delay requirement in a following manner:
determining, by the AP, that uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement, or determining, by the AP, that downlink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement.
As to claim 2, Choi teaches wherein before the AP broadcasts the target frame to all the STAs comprised in the target BSS (Choi, [0179], “the AP makes the STA stop EDCA access and transmits a trigger frame for a random access or a scheduled access to trigger UL MU transmission”), the data transmission method further comprises determining, by the AP, that the data transmission under the EDCA mode does not satisfy the low delay requirement in a following manner:
determining, by the AP, that uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement (Choi, [0179], “if transmission delay is greater than a specific threshold value until the AP receives a UL frame transmitted from the STA again, the AP makes the STA stop EDCA access and transmits a trigger frame for a random access or a scheduled access to trigger UL MU transmission”), or determining, by the AP, that downlink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao, Ramos and Hart to have the features, as taught by Choi, in order to determine an efficient access method when coverage is extended (Choi, [0016]).
Zhao, Ramos, Hart and Choi teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao, Ramos, Hart and Choi do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 21, wherein determining, by the AP, that uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement comprises:
receiving a notification from the STA sent when the STA determines that the uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement; and
determining, by the AP, that the uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement according to notification received from the STA.
As to claim 21, Smith teaches wherein determining, by the AP, that uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement comprises:
receiving a notification from the STA sent when the STA determines that the uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement (Smith, Fig. 4, col 8 ln 47-48, “The access point 108 begins by receiving a BSR 116 from a device 102 in step 402”, col 2 ln 23-26, “the device includes a head of line (HOL) delay in the BSRs transmitted by the device. The HOL delay indicates an amount of time that a packet in the device's queue has waited for transmission”); and
determining, by the AP, that the uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement according to notification received from the STA (Smith, Fig. 4, col 8 ln 55-62, “In step 404, the access point 108 determines whether a HOL delay 120 in the BSR 116 exceeds a threshold… If the HOL delay 120 exceeds the threshold, the access point 108 schedules uplink resources 122 for the device 102 that reduce the HOL delay 120 below the threshold in step 406”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao, Ramos, Hart and Choi to have the features, as taught by Smith, in order to reduce delay and allows video and voice applications to experience a higher quality of service (Smith, col 2 ln 34-36).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2008/0171550) in view of Ramos et al. (US 2008/0095124), hereinafter “Ramos” and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2013/0100952), hereinafter “Hart” and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0139699), hereinafter “Choi” and further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,470,629), hereinafter “Smith”.
Zhao, Ramos, Hart and Choi teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao, Ramos, Hart and Choi do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 3, wherein determining, by the AP, that the uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement comprises:
acquiring, by the AP, a first Buffer Status Report (BSR) frame sent by a first STA comprised in all the STAs; and
when it is determined that the first BSR frame comprises a target field and a value of the target field is equal to a first value, determining, by the AP, that the uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement.
As to claim 3, Smith teaches wherein determining, by the AP, that the uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement comprises:
acquiring, by the AP, a first Buffer Status Report (BSR) frame sent by a first STA (Smith, Fig. 4, col 8 ln 47-48, “The access point 108 begins by receiving a BSR 116 from a device 102 in step 402”) comprised in all the STAs (Smith, Fig. 1, col 2 ln 38-40, “the system includes one or more devices 102”); and
when it is determined that the first BSR frame comprises a target field and a value of the target field is equal to a first value (Smith, Fig. 4, col 8 ln 55-59, “In step 404, the access point 108 determines whether a HOL delay 120 in the BSR 116 exceeds a threshold”), determining, by the AP, that the uplink data transmission does not satisfy the low delay requirement (Smith, Fig. 4, col 8 ln 59-62, “If the HOL delay 120 exceeds the threshold, the access point 108 schedules uplink resources 122 for the device 102 that reduce the HOL delay 120 below the threshold in step 406”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao, Ramos, Hart and Choi to have the features, as taught by Smith, in order to reduce delay and allows video and voice applications to experience a higher quality of service (Smith, col 2 ln 34-36).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2008/0171550) in view of Ramos et al. (US 2008/0095124), hereinafter “Ramos” and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2013/0100952), hereinafter “Hart” and further in view of Wijting et al. (US 2006/0268716), hereinafter “Wijting”.
Zhao, Ramos and Hart teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao, Ramos and Hart do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 10, wherein determining that the data transmission under the EDCA mode satisfies the low delay requirement comprises:
determining that uplink data transmission under the EDCA mode satisfies the low delay requirement, and determining that downlink data transmission under the EDCA mode satisfies the low delay requirement.
As to claim 10, Wijting teaches wherein determining that the data transmission under the EDCA mode satisfies the low delay requirement comprises:
determining that uplink data transmission under the EDCA mode satisfies the low delay requirement, and determining that downlink data transmission under the EDCA mode satisfies the low delay requirement (Wijting, [0005], “a first set of QoS parameters (such as EDCA parameters or other parameters) may be used for uplink traffic for one or more mesh points in a wireless meshed network, and a second set of QoS parameters may be used for downlink traffic for the one or more mesh points in the wireless meshed network”, [0033], “admission control may be negotiated by the use of a TSPEC traffic specification which a station or MP provides to a MP to specify its traffic flow requirements (e.g., data rate, delay bounds, packet size)”. Traffic flow parameters, such as delay bounds, is not permitted (not met) for using high AC and associated high priority QoS parameters, which are used for uplink traffic and downlink traffic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao, Ramos and Hart to have the features, as taught by Wijting, in order to provide different priorities to uplink traffic and downlink traffic for one or more nodes or mesh points within a network, such as within a wireless meshed network (Wijting, [0005]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2008/0171550) in view of Ramos et al. (US 2008/0095124), hereinafter “Ramos” and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2013/0100952), hereinafter “Hart” and further in view of Mangold et al. (US 2002/0093929), hereinafter “Mangold”.
Zhao, Ramos and Hart teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Zhao, Ramos and Hart do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 14, further comprising:
after entering, by the AP, the CP of the data transmission, when the AP acquires a second TXOP in the CP, broadcasting, by the AP, the target frame to all the STAs, so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy the second TXOP for data transmission.
As to claim 14, Mangold teaches further comprising:
after entering, by the AP, the CP of the data transmission (Mangold, Fig. 3, [0039], “the CP must be available after each CFP repetition interval with a specific minimum length in order to allow the exchange of at least one data frame”), when the AP acquires a second TXOP in the CP (Mangold, Fig. 3, [0039], “the STA receives a QoS CF-Poll from the HCF (referred to as granted TXOP)”), broadcasting, by the AP, the target frame to all the STAs, so as to notify all the STAs that the AP needs to occupy the second TXOP for data transmission (Mangold, Fig. 3, [0039], “During the CP, the DCF operation is enabled, and each TXOP of a STA begins either when the medium is determined to be available by the STA under the DCF rules (referred to as DCF TXOP) or when the STA receives a QoS CF-Poll from the HCF (referred to as granted TXOP)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao, Ramos and Hart to have the features, as taught by Mangold, in order to provide a mechanism that efficiently utilizes the bandwidth (Mangold, [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO H CASTANEYRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/RICARDO H CASTANEYRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights