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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20, drawn to initiator and responder negotiating transmission opportunities, classified in H04W 74/0816.
II. Claims 21-40, drawn to generating a schedule and setting transmit and reception states, classified in H04W 72/0446.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related field of wireless communication. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Howard Wernow on 06/01/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 21-40 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 11, it is not clear from the claim language whether initiator or responder is performing the steps since the steps seem to be performed by initiator and responder separately not together according to the specification.
The dependent claims 12-19 are rejected on the same grounds by virtue of their dependency.
With regards to claim 20, it is not clear how the initiator or responder can execute the same computer program product when they are performing entirely different functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Ramkumar et al. US 7,688,775 B2.
Claim 20:
Ramkumar discloses a transmission system (See fig. 4, coordinator and node), comprising: an initiator having a first processor and a first computer readable medium accessible by the first processor (See fig. 1, node. Also see col 3 lines 25-30, instructions implemented by a processor stored on computer readable medium); a responder having a second processor and a second computer readable medium accessible by the second processor (See fig. 1, coordinator. Also see col 3 lines 25-30, instructions implemented by a processor stored on computer readable medium)), wherein the responder is operatively in communication with the initiator (See fig. 4, coordinator and node); and a computer program product that is stored on the first computer readable medium and is stored on the second computer readable medium (See fig. 1, coordinator. Also see col 3 lines 25-30, instructions implemented by a processor stored on computer readable medium)); wherein when the computer program product is executed by the first processor of the initiator and the second processor of the responder, the computer program product establishes a contention free schedule between the initiator and the responder to communicate at predetermined time periods (See fig. 4, step 408-416, sets up contention free TXOPs).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar et al. US 7,688,775 B2 in view of Shafin et al. US 20250254727 A1.
Claim 1:
Ramkumar discloses a computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a set of network devices of a transmission system, cause a process to establish a resolution schedule subsequent to a discovery operation, the instructions comprising: execute, by a first processor of the at least two processors of an initiator of the set of network devices, a set of initiation instructions that instructs the initiator to output an initiation message including at least a set of initiator transmission opportunities having a first scope upon receiving a contention variable from a responder of the network device (See fig. 4 step 404, nodes requests guaranteed timeslots upon receiving a beacon and joining the network, see col 3 lines 15-20); execute, by a second processor of the at least two processors of the responder of the set of network devices, a set of response instructions that instructs the responder to select a set of responder response opportunities upon receiving the set of initiator transmission opportunities and to output a response message that includes at least a set of responder transmission opportunities having a second scope (See fig. 4 step 404-412, dynamically change guaranteed timeslot timings and send it the node(s)); and execute, by the first processor of the initiator, a set of instructions that instructs the initiator to select a set of initiator response opportunities upon receiving the set of responder transmission opportunities (See fig. 4 step 416, uses Guaranteed Timeslots).
Ramkumar doesn’t disclose execute, by the first processor of the initiator, a set of confirmation instructions that instructs the initiator to output a confirmation message that includes the set of initiator response opportunities.
Shafin discloses execute, by the first processor of the initiator, a set of confirmation instructions that instructs the initiator to output a confirmation message that includes the set of initiator response opportunities (See para 115, “the first AP receives, from the second AP, acknowledgement frame acknowledging receipt of the transmitted TXOP allocation announcement frame”).
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 system of Rajkumar with the teachings of Shafin to improve the method disclosed by Rajkumar by including the feature of confirmation message. The motivation to combine would have been to efficiently reserve resources and avoid any confusion in allocation.
Claim 11:
Ramkumar discloses a method of establishing a contention free schedule in a transmission system, the method comprising the steps of: installing a computer program product with a set of network devices of the transmission system, the transmission system comprises at least: an initiator of the set of network devices of the transmission system having a first processor; and a responder of the set of network devices of the transmission system having a second processor that is operatively in communication with the initiator (See fig. 4, coordinator and node); wherein when the computer program product is executed by the first processor of the initiator and the second processor of the responder, the first processor and the second processor are caused to: output an initiation message including at least a set of initiator transmission opportunities having a first scope upon receiving a contention variable from the responder of the set of network devices (See fig. 4 step 404, nodes requests guaranteed timeslots upon receiving a beacon and joining the network, see col 3 lines 15-20); select a set of responder response opportunities upon receiving the set of initiator transmission opportunities and to output a response message that includes at least a set of responder transmission opportunities having a second scope that is equal with or different than the first scope (See fig. 4 step 404-412, dynamically change guaranteed timeslot timings and send it the node(s)); select a set of initiator response opportunities upon receiving the set of responder transmission opportunities (See fig. 4 step 416, uses Guaranteed Timeslots) and establish the contention free schedule in the transmission system between the initiator and the responder for communicating at predetermined time periods (See fig. 4 step 416, uses Guaranteed Timeslots).
Ramkumar doesn’t disclose to output a confirmation message that includes the set of initiator response opportunities.
Shafin discloses to output a confirmation message that includes the set of initiator response opportunities (See para 115, “the first AP receives, from the second AP, acknowledgement frame acknowledging receipt of the transmitted TXOP allocation announcement frame”).
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 system of Rajkumar with the teachings of Shafin to improve the method disclosed by Rajkumar by including the feature of confirmation message. The motivation to combine would have been to efficiently reserve resources and avoid any confusion in allocation.
Claim 6:
Ramkumar discloses that the first scope and the second scope are different from one another (See fig. 4 step 404-412, dynamically change guaranteed timeslot timings and send it the node(s)).
Claim 16:
Ramkumar discloses that the first processor is further caused to: refrain from selecting one or more transmission opportunities from the set of initiator transmission opportunities or one or more receive opportunities from the set of initiator response opportunities (See fig. 4 step 404-412, dynamically change guaranteed timeslot timings and send it the node(s)).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkumar et al. in view of Shafin et al. and Nayak et al. US 2025/0393073 A1
Claim 3:
Rajkumar in view of Shafin doesn’t disclose a termination method that instructs the initiator to output a termination message to the responder to terminate communication between the initiator and the responder.
Nayak discloses a termination method that instructs the initiator to output a termination message to the responder to terminate communication between the initiator and the responder (See paras 106, termination message between initiator and responder).
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 system of Rajkumar in view of Shafin with the teachings of Nayak to improve the method disclosed by Rajkumar in view of Shafin by including the feature of termination message. The motivation to combine would have been to save network resources.
Claim 13:
Rajkumar in view of Shafin doesn’t disclose that the first processor and the second processor are further caused to: output a termination message to the responder to terminate communication between the initiator and the responder.
Nayak discloses that the first processor and the second processor are further caused to: output a termination message to the responder to terminate communication between the initiator and the responder (See paras 106, termination message between initiator and responder).
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 system of Rajkumar in view of Shafin with the teachings of Nayak to improve the method disclosed by Rajkumar in view of Shafin by including the feature of termination message. The motivation to combine would have been to save network resources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5 and 7-10 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.
Claims 12, 14-15, 18 & 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights