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 .
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 18, 21-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AJAMI et al. (US 2023/0049192 A1, as cited in IDS, hereinafter AJAMI), in view of Xin et al. (US 2023/0047705 A1, as cited in IDS, hereinafter Xin).
Regarding claim 1,
AJAMI teaches a wireless device, comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (AJAMI, see at least fig. 2-3, various apparatus components),
the processing system configured to cause the wireless device to (AJAMI, in general, see fig. 9A-9B and corresponding paragraphs 112-123, in view of one or more of fig. 4A-B-C and their respective paragraphs; note that fig. 8A-8B and their corresponding paragraphs are additional embodiments which may also be relevant):
the first message requesting prioritized access for the first AP to a shared wireless channel during the coordinated time region (AJAMI, see at least para. 113-114, “...the AP 902 attempts to time the transmission of the trigger frame to coincide with the start of the restricted TWT SP... a duration field (in the MAC header) of the trigger frame may be used to protect latency-sensitive traffic in the restricted TWT SP...”, note that low-latency STA 904 (i.e. for latency-sensitive traffic) is prioritized to share the medium in R-TWT SP, which is t1-t8);
and perform a channel access procedure for the shared wireless channel over a time duration that occurs within the coordinated time region (AJAMI, see at least para. 114-115, “...the non-legacy STA 906 sets its NAV to the duration indicated by the duration field of the trigger frame, which spans a duration from times t2 to t4. At the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access...”, note that non-legacy STA 906 attempt to access the medium still within the R-TWT SP, which is t1-t8),
wherein a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region (AJAMI, see at least para. 115 and 117, for one non-limiting example, “...At the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access. ... After the transmission of the TB PPDU has completed, at time t5, the non-legacy STA 906 may once again contend for medium access...”; for another non-limiting example, “...the NAV duration may be configured to span beyond the duration of the TB PPDU...”, note that both examples are still within the R-TWT SP, which is t1-t8).
AJAMI does not specifically teach obtain a first message indicating a coordinated time region associated with a first access point (AP).
Xin teaches obtain a first message indicating a coordinated time region associated with a first access point (AP) (Xin, in general, see sections and paragraphs including at least fig. 20 and 23, in particular, see at least para. 114, “...A R-TWT scheduling AP is able to schedule and announce R-TWTs. A R-TWT scheduled STA (scheduling enabled STA) is a non-AP STA that is able to receive and recognize R-TWT announcements from the R-TWT scheduling AP and support R-TWT operations...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Xin into AJAMI to improve the efficiency of channel usage and avoid fair use issues (abuse) of R-TWT SP (Xin, para. 11).
Regarding claim 2, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 1.
AJAMI further teaches terminate a transmission opportunity prior to a start time of the coordinated time region, wherein the channel access procedure is initiated at or after the start time of the coordinated time region. (AJAMI, see at least para. 119 and 121 along with para. 61, “...In the example of FIG. 9B, the non-legacy STA 916 acquires a truncated TXOP before the start of the restricted TWT SP... At the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 916 may contend for medium access...”, note that para. 61 teaches that “...the existing rules regarding restricted TWT operation require non-member STAs to terminate their TXOPs by the start of a restricted TWT SP. Because the restricted TWT SP of FIG. 4A starts at time t3, the non-legacy STA 404 must truncate its TXOP between times t2 to t3...”)
Regarding claim 3, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 2.
AJAMI further teaches the length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on termination of the transmission opportunity prior to a start time of the coordinated time region. (AJAMI, see at least para. 119 and 121 along with para. 61, “...In the example of FIG. 9B, the non-legacy STA 916 acquires a truncated TXOP before the start of the restricted TWT SP... At the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 916 may contend for medium access...”, note that the truncation is prior to the R-TWT SP at t0)
Regarding claim 4, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 1.
AJAMI further teaches to perform the channel access procedure, the processing system is configured to cause the wireless device to: initiate the channel access procedure prior to a start time of the coordinated time region, wherein the channel access procedure is paused or terminated at or before the start time of the coordinated time region. (AJAMI, see at least para. 119 and 121 along with para. 61, “...In the example of FIG. 9B, the non-legacy STA 916 acquires a truncated TXOP before the start of the restricted TWT SP...”, note that at the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 916 may again contend for medium access)
Regarding claim 5, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 4.
AJAMI further teaches the length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on initiation of the channel access procedure prior to the start time of the coordinated time region. (AJAMI, see at least para. 119 and 121 along with para. 61, “...In the example of FIG. 9B, the non-legacy STA 916 acquires a truncated TXOP before the start of the restricted TWT SP... At the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 916 may contend for medium access...”, note that para. 61 teaches that “...the existing rules regarding restricted TWT operation require non-member STAs to terminate their TXOPs by the start of a restricted TWT SP. Because the restricted TWT SP of FIG. 4A starts at time t3, the non-legacy STA 404 must truncate its TXOP between times t2 to t3...”)
Regarding claim 6, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 1.
AJAMI further teaches to perform the channel access procedure, the processing system is configured to cause the wireless device to: initiate the channel access procedure prior to a start time of the coordinated time region, wherein the channel access procedure is restarted at or after the start time of the coordinated time region. (AJAMI, see at least para. 119 and 121 along with para. 61, “...In the example of FIG. 9B, the non-legacy STA 916 acquires a truncated TXOP before the start of the restricted TWT SP...”, note that at the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 916 may again contend for medium access)
Regarding claim 7, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 1.
AJAMI further teaches to perform the channel access procedure, the processing system is configured to cause the wireless device to: perform the channel access procedure over the length of the time duration based at least in part on the channel access procedure being initiated within a threshold time window after a start time of the coordinated time region. (AJAMI, see at least para. 115 and/or 121, for one non-limiting example, “...At the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access. However, the non-legacy STA 906 senses that the medium is busy at time t4 due to the transmission of the TB PPDU. Thus, the non-legacy STA 906 refrains from accessing the shared medium for the duration of the TB PPDU. After the transmission of the TB PPDU has completed, at time t5, the non-legacy STA 906 may once again contend for medium access. As shown in FIG. 9A, the non-legacy STA 906 senses that the medium is idle for an AIFS duration, from times t5 to t6, counts down an RBO duration, from times t6 to t7, and acquires a TXOP, from times t7 to t5...”, note that all attempts are after t1)
Regarding claim 9, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 1.
AJAMI further teaches the time duration includes an inter frame space, an additional time interval for monitoring for channel idle conditions, or both. (AJAMI, see at least fig. 9A and/or 9B, for example, any one or more of the NAV, AIFS, RBO, etc.)
Regarding claim 10, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 9.
AJAMI further teaches the inter frame space is based at least in part on a delay associated with an access category. (AJAMI, see at least para. 61 along with para. 34, “...For example, the threshold duration (from times t0 to t1) may be an arbitration interframe spacing (AIFS) duration associated with a particular access category (AC) of data traffic...”, note that para. 34 discloses “...Some random channel access mechanisms, such as enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA), afford high-priority traffic a greater likelihood of gaining medium access than low-priority traffic. EDCA classifies data into different access categories (ACs) such as, for example, voice (AC_VO), video (AC_VI), best effort (AC_BE), and background (AC_BK). Each AC is associated with a different priority level and may be assigned a different range of RBOs so that higher priority data is more likely to win a TXOP than lower priority data (such as by assigning lower RBOs to higher priority data and assigning higher RBOs to lower priority data)...”)
Regarding claim 11, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 9.
AJAMI further teaches the inter frame space is based at least in part on a channel access parameter, a delay associated with an access category of traffic, or both. (AJAMI, see at least para. 61 along with para. 34, “...For example, the threshold duration (from times t0 to t1) may be an arbitration interframe spacing (AIFS) duration associated with a particular access category (AC) of data traffic...”, note that para. 34 discloses “...Some random channel access mechanisms, such as enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA), afford high-priority traffic a greater likelihood of gaining medium access than low-priority traffic. EDCA classifies data into different access categories (ACs) such as, for example, voice (AC_VO), video (AC_VI), best effort (AC_BE), and background (AC_BK). Each AC is associated with a different priority level and may be assigned a different range of RBOs so that higher priority data is more likely to win a TXOP than lower priority data (such as by assigning lower RBOs to higher priority data and assigning higher RBOs to lower priority data)...”)
Regarding claim 12, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 9.
AJAMI further teaches the additional time interval is based at least in part on an access category associated with the wireless device. (AJAMI, see at least para. 61 along with para. 34, “...For example, the threshold duration (from times t0 to t1) may be an arbitration interframe spacing (AIFS) duration associated with a particular access category (AC) of data traffic...”, note that para. 34 discloses “...Some random channel access mechanisms, such as enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA), afford high-priority traffic a greater likelihood of gaining medium access than low-priority traffic. EDCA classifies data into different access categories (ACs) such as, for example, voice (AC_VO), video (AC_VI), best effort (AC_BE), and background (AC_BK). Each AC is associated with a different priority level and may be assigned a different range of RBOs so that higher priority data is more likely to win a TXOP than lower priority data (such as by assigning lower RBOs to higher priority data and assigning higher RBOs to lower priority data)...”)
Regarding claim 13, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 9.
AJAMI further teaches the additional time interval is a predefined time duration or is associated with a quantity of one or more backoff slots. (AJAMI, see at least para. 61 along with para. 34, “...For example, the threshold duration (from times t0 to t1) may be an arbitration interframe spacing (AIFS) duration associated with a particular access category (AC) of data traffic...”, note that para. 34 discloses “...Some random channel access mechanisms, such as enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA), afford high-priority traffic a greater likelihood of gaining medium access than low-priority traffic. EDCA classifies data into different access categories (ACs) such as, for example, voice (AC_VO), video (AC_VI), best effort (AC_BE), and background (AC_BK). Each AC is associated with a different priority level and may be assigned a different range of RBOs so that higher priority data is more likely to win a TXOP than lower priority data (such as by assigning lower RBOs to higher priority data and assigning higher RBOs to lower priority data)...”)
Regarding claim 14, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 9.
AJAMI further teaches to perform the channel access procedure, the processing system is further configured to cause the wireless device to: monitor the shared wireless channel for channel idle conditions for the length of the time duration that is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region. (AJAMI, see at least fig. 9A and/or 9B, for example, one or more of NAV, Busy, AIFs, RBO, before TXOP, all from t2 to t7 and within t1-t8)
Regarding claim 18, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 1.
AJAMI further teaches the coordinated time region is a coordinated restricted target wake time period. (AJAMI, see at least fig. 9A or 9B, for example, R-TWT SP)
Regarding claim 21, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 1.
AJAMI further teaches the wireless device is associated with the first AP or a second AP that coordinates with the first AP. (AJAMI, see at least fig. 9A or 9B, for example, AP 902)
Regarding claims 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 28, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 29, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in computer-readable medium claim format.
To be more specific, AJAMI in view of Xin also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising computer-readable medium (AJAMI, see at least fig. 2-3), which is well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 30, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, AJAMI in view of Xin also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising means for performing various functions (AJAMI, see at least fig. 2-3), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Claims 8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AJAMI in view of Xin, and further in view of KIM et al. (US 2023/0345535 A1, hereinafter KIM).
Regarding claim 8, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 1.
AJAMI further teaches to perform the channel access procedure, the processing system is configured to cause the wireless device to: perform the channel access procedure over the length of the time duration... after a start time of the coordinated time region. (AJAMI, see at least para. 114-115, “...At the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access. However, the non-legacy STA 906 senses that the medium is busy at time t4 due to the transmission of the TB PPDU. Thus, the non-legacy STA 906 refrains from accessing the shared medium for the duration of the TB PPDU. After the transmission of the TB PPDU has completed, at time t5, the non-legacy STA 906 may once again contend for medium access. As shown in FIG. 9A, the non-legacy STA 906 senses that the medium is idle for an AIFS duration, from times t5 to t6, counts down an RBO duration, from times t6 to t7, and acquires a TXOP, from times t7 to t5...”, note that non-legacy STA 906 attempt to access the medium after the start time of the R-TWT SP)
AJAMI in view of Xin does not teach [perform the channel access procedure] based at least in part on a quantity of channel access procedures performed being less than a threshold quantity.
KIM teaches [perform the channel access procedure] access category associated with a traffic identifier flow of the first AP (KIM, at least para. 88 of fig. 6, “...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. When a wireless signal having the CCA threshold or more, which is received by the terminal, indicates the corresponding terminal as a receiver, the terminal processes the received wireless signal. Meanwhile, when a wireless signal is not sensed in the corresponding channel or a wireless signal having a strength smaller than the CCA threshold is sensed, it is determined that the channel is idle...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate KIM into AJAMI in view of Xin to avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel. (KIM, para. 90).
Regarding claim 27, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 8 except this claim is in method claim format.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AJAMI in view of Xin, and further in view of BAEK et al. (US 2023/0403739 A1, hereinafter BAEK).
Regarding claim 15, AJAMI in view of Xin teaches claim 9.
AJAMI further teaches the additional time interval is based at least in part on an access category (AJAMI, see at least para. 61 along with para. 34, “...For example, the threshold duration (from times t0 to t1) may be an arbitration interframe spacing (AIFS) duration associated with a particular access category (AC) of data traffic...”, note that para. 34 discloses “...Some random channel access mechanisms, such as enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA), afford high-priority traffic a greater likelihood of gaining medium access than low-priority traffic. EDCA classifies data into different access categories (ACs) such as, for example, voice (AC_VO), video (AC_VI), best effort (AC_BE), and background (AC_BK). Each AC is associated with a different priority level and may be assigned a different range of RBOs so that higher priority data is more likely to win a TXOP than lower priority data (such as by assigning lower RBOs to higher priority data and assigning higher RBOs to lower priority data)...”).
AJAMI in view of Xin does not teach access category associated with a traffic identifier flow of the first AP.
BAEK teaches access category associated with a traffic identifier flow of the first AP (BAEK, in general see at least para. 176-183, in particular, see at least para. 178, “...in the present specification, the latency-sensitive data may be data included in a predefined access category (AC). Also, in the present specification, the latency-sensitive data may be data to which a predefined traffic identifier (TID) is assigned...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BAEK into AJAMI in view of Xin to reduce media contention, thereby improving the energy efficiency of non-AP STAs (BAEK, para. 174).
Regarding claim 16, AJAMI in view of Xin and BAEK teaches claim 15.
BAEK further teaches obtain a second message, via broadcast target wake time signaling, indicating the access category associated with the traffic identifier (BAEK, see at least para. 180-181 along with para. 178, “...The restricted TWT is a technology in which a low-latency STA transmitting latency-sensitive data preferentially secures the transmission time of the corresponding data using broadcast TWT...”, note that “...in the present specification, the latency-sensitive data may be data included in a predefined access category (AC). Also, in the present specification, the latency-sensitive data may be data to which a predefined traffic identifier (TID) is assigned...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BAEK into AJAMI in view of Xin to reduce media contention, thereby improving the energy efficiency of non-AP STAs (BAEK, para. 174).
Regarding claim 17, AJAMI in view of Xin and BAEK teaches claim 15.
BAEK further teaches the first message indicates the access category associated with the traffic identifier flow. (BAEK, see at least para. 208 along with para. 207, “...Information on the TID of latency-sensitive data to be transmitted within the restricted TWT SP may be included in a beacon that announces restricted TWT scheduling information from an AP...”, note that “...distinguishing latency-sensitive data/traffic from data of other ACs using TID values from 8 to 15...”, in other words, ACs are indeed associated with TIDs)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BAEK into AJAMI in view of Xin to reduce media contention, thereby improving the energy efficiency of non-AP STAs (BAEK, para. 174).
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (US 2023/0139168 A1, hereinafter Xin_168), in view of AJAMI.
Regarding claim 1,
Xin_168 teaches a wireless device, comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (Xin_168, see at least fig. 14-15, e.g. various apparatus components),
the processing system configured to cause the wireless device to (Xin_168, in general, see fig. 49 and its corresponding paragraphs 285-288):
obtain a first message indicating a coordinated time region associated with a first access point (AP), the first message requesting prioritized access for the first AP to a shared wireless channel during the coordinated time region (Xin_168, see at least para. 286 along with para. 248, “...In a ML R-TWT setup 1912, STA3 is seen requesting
1914 membership, in response to which AP1 responds with ML R-TWT response 1916
scheduling a SL R-TWT4 on link2 only, with schedule 1918 and duration 1922...”, note that fig. 49 shows schedule 1918 being “First SL R-TWT4 SP for STA5 on link1 (TSF time on link1)”, also note that para. 248 shows “...Then AP1 forwards this request (not shown as it is an intra-MLD transfer) to AP2. AP2 then sends a ML R-TWT response
1218 over link2 to indicate that the membership request has been accepted...”);
and perform a channel access procedure for the shared wireless channel over a time duration that occurs within the coordinated time region (Xin_168, see at least para. 286, “...During the SL R-TWT4 SP, STA5 can exchange the frames with AP2. Then, it is possible that STA3 has to end its TXOP on link1 1919 before the start time of R-TWT4 SP, and STA3 is not allowed to access 1920 the channel on link1 until the R-TWT4 SP ends or STA5 finishes its frame exchange with AP2 during the R-TWT4 SP...”, note that STA3 may still allow to access 1920 the channel on link1 when STA5 finishes its frame exchange with AP2 during the R-TWT4 SP).
Xin_168 does not specifically teach wherein a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region.
AJAMI teaches wherein a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region (AJAMI, see at least para. 115 and 117, for one non-limiting example, “...At the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access. ... After the transmission of the TB PPDU has completed, at time t5, the non-legacy STA 906 may once again contend for medium access...”; for another non-limiting example, “...the NAV duration may be configured to span beyond the duration of the TB PPDU...”, note that both examples are still within the R-TWT SP, which is t1-t8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate AJAMI into Xin_168 to significantly improve the latency gains achievable by latency-sensitive traffic through application of restricted TWT SPs (AJAMI, para. 38).
Regarding claim 19, Xin_168 in view of AJAMI teaches claim 1.
Xin_168 further teaches the wireless device is a second AP that coordinates with the first AP. (Xin_168, see at least para. 285 and fig. 49, “...the figure depicts, by way of example and not limitation, interactions between
MLD1 70 with AP1 76 and AP2 78 and MLD3 74 with non-AP STA3 84 and non-AP
STA5 88...”)
Regarding claim 20, Xin_168 in view of AJAMI teaches claim 19.
Xin_168 further teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the wireless device to: manage traffic, at the second AP, via a multi-user enhanced distributed channel access or a request to send enablement. (Xin_168, see at least para. 285 along with para. 297, “...the figure depicts, by way of example and not limitation, interactions between MLD1 70 with AP1 76 and AP2 78 and MLD3 74 with non-AP STA3 84 and non-AP STA5 88...”, note that at least enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) is utilized)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“However, the Office Action has not shown that the cited portions of Ajami teach or suggest "the first message requesting prioritized access for the first AP to a shared wireless channel during the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1. Ajami describes a situation where "the AP 902 may transmit a trigger frame," that "the low-latency STA 904 responds to the trigger frame by transmitting [UL] data to the AP 902," and that "the non- legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access" at "the end of the NAV duration" which is "indicated by the duration field of the trigger frame." Notably, the Office Action itself describes the cited portions of Ajami as describing a situation where "low-latency STA 904 is prioritized to share the medium in R-TWT SP." Office Action, p. 6. Thus, by the Office Action's own mapping, the Office Action fails to show how a situation where "low-latency STA 904 is prioritized" may be used to teach or suggest "the first message requesting prioritized access for the first AP," as recited in independent claim 1.” (Remarks, page 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ajami in at least para. 113-114 discloses that, in part, the AP 902 may transmit a trigger frame over a shared wireless medium at the beginning of the restricted TWT SP. The AP 902 attempts to time the transmission of the trigger frame to coincide with the start of the restricted TWT SP. Note that a duration field of the trigger frame may be used to protect latency-sensitive traffic in the restricted TWT SP, for example, the STA 904 traffic. In other words, the trigger frame, sent by the AP, is to prioritize access for the first AP to a shared wireless channel. Hence, Ajami, alone, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “the first message requesting prioritized access for the first AP to a shared wireless channel during the coordinated time region," as recited in claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“In addition, the Office Action fails to show that the cited portions of Ajami teach or suggest "perform a channel access procedure for the shared wireless channel over a time duration that occurs within the coordinated time region, wherein a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1. Ajami describes a non-legacy STA that "may contend for medium access" at "the end of the NAV duration," and notes examples of the NAV duration. For example, Ajami notes that "[i]n the example of FIG. 9A, the NAV duration is configured to terminate before the end of the TB PPDU," and notes that "in some other implementations, the NAV duration may be configured to span beyond the duration of the TB PPDU." Ajami I [0117] (emphasis added). The Office Action has not shown how examples of possible NAV durations teach or suggest that "a length of the time duration is extended," as claimed, much less teach or suggest that "a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1. Further, the Office Action specifically notes that, by its mapping, the cited examples of Ajami occur "within the R-TWT SP, which is tl-t8." Office Action, p. 6. By the Office Action's own mapping, the Office Action has not shown how possible NAV durations "within the R-TWT SP" would teach or suggest that "a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1.” (Remarks, page 10-11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ajami in at least para. 117 discloses the NAV duration carried in the trigger frame may be selected to balance the efficiency of medium utilization with latency gains for latency-sensitive traffic. In the example of FIG. 9A, the NAV duration is configured to terminate before the end of the TB PPDU. As such, at the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access as disclosed in para. 115. However, the NAV duration may also be configured to span beyond the duration of the TB PPDU (e.g. t5). Hence, at the end of the that NAV duration which span beyond the duration of the TB PPDU, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access again. Hence, Ajami, alone, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “wherein a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region," as recited in claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“However, prioritizing the traffic of the R-TWT scheduled STA when the R-TWT scheduled STA becomes a member of an R-TWT, as in Xin '168, does not teach or suggest "the first message requesting prioritized access for the first AP to a shared wireless channel during the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1. While Xin '168 describes an AP1 forwarding a membership request from STA3 to an AP2, Xin '168 makes no mention of the membership request "requesting prioritized access for the first AP," as claimed. Indeed, Xin '168 describes that the response from AP2 includes information about STA5's communications, during which "STA3 has to end its TXOP," and "is not allowed to access the channel until the R-TWT4 SP ends or STA5 finishes its frame exchange with AP2 during the R-TWT SP." That is, Xin '168 describes prioritizing STA5 over STA3 during a time window, which does not teach or suggest "obtain a first message requesting prioritized access for the first AP to a shared wireless channel during the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1.” (Remarks, page 12-13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xin_168 in at least para. 286 discloses STA3 is seen requesting 1914 membership, in response to which AP1 responds with ML R-TWT response 1916 scheduling a SL R-TWT4 on link2 only, with schedule 1918 and duration 1922. Note that During the SL R-TWT4 SP, STA5 can exchange the frames with AP2, and STA3 is not allowed to access 1920 the channel on link1 until the R-TWT4 SP ends. For that reason alone, Xin_168 indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “the first message requesting prioritized access for the first AP to a shared wireless channel during the coordinated time region," as recited in claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“However, the Office Action fails to show that the cited portions of Ajami teach or suggest that "a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1. Ajami describes a non-legacy STA that "may contend for medium access" at "the end of the NAV duration," and notes examples of the NAV duration. For example, Ajami notes that "[i]n the example of FIG. 9A, the NAV duration is configured to terminate before the end of the TB PPDU," and notes that "in some other implementations, the NAV duration may be configured to span beyond the duration of the TB PPDU." Ajami 1 [0117] (emphasis added). The Office Action has not shown how examples of possible NAV durations teach or suggest that "a length of the time duration is extended," as claimed, much less teach or suggest that "a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1. Further, the Office Action specifically notes that, by its mapping, the cited examples of Ajami occur "within the R-TWT SP, which is tl-t8." Office Action, p. 20. By the Office Action's own mapping, the Office Action has not shown how possible NAV durations "within the R-TWT SP" would teach or suggest that "a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed within the coordinated time region," as recited in independent claim 1 or overcome the deficiencies of Xin '168.” (Remarks, page 14)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Ajami in at least para. 117 discloses the NAV duration carried in the trigger frame may be selected to balance the efficiency of medium utilization with latency gains for latency-sensitive traffic. In the example of FIG. 9A, the NAV duration is configured to terminate before the end of the TB PPDU. As such, at the end of the NAV duration, at time t4, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access as disclosed in para. 115. However, the NAV duration may also be configured to span beyond the duration of the TB PPDU (e.g. t5, etc.). Hence, at the end of the that NAV duration which span beyond the duration of the TB PPDU, the non-legacy STA 906 may contend for medium access again. Hence, Ajami indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “wherein a length of the time duration is extended based at least in part on the channel access procedure being performed
Regarding independent claims 22, 29, and 30, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 22, 29, and 30, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
