DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P.201.14(c), acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority based on application(s) 63/515,163 submitted on July 24th, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on July 9th, 2024 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over ONG et al. (US 2012/0182886 A1) hereinafter “ONG” in view of KNECKT et al. (US 2017/0164405 A1) hereinafter “KNECKT”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 15,
ONG discloses a wireless device to implement a station (STA) in a wireless network [see pg. 6, ¶120 lines 1-7, an apparatus or STA], the wireless device [see pg. 6, ¶120 lines 1-7, the apparatus] comprising:
a radio frequency transceiver [see pg. 6, ¶120 lines 1-7, at least one radio frequency transceiver];
a memory device storing a set of instructions [see pg. 6, ¶120 lines 1-7, a memory storing a program]; and
a processor coupled to the memory device [see pg. 6, ¶120 lines 1-7, at least one data processor], wherein the set of instructions when executed by the processor causes the STA to [see pg. 6, ¶120 lines 1-7, the program implemented by the processor for the STA to]:
determine a maximum supportable bandwidth of a primary transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a primary channel [see pg. 4, ¶58 lines 1-4, when there is a need to transmit and define properties of a TXOP, the stored TXOP limit information is retrieved, e.g. after detecting “810” information on available channels and bandwidth]; and
responsive to a determination that the maximum supportable bandwidth of the primary TXOP is smaller than a maximum supportable bandwidth of the STA [see pg. 4, ¶60 lines 1-17, on the basis of a TXOP parameter associated in the set with bandwidth available by the respective secondary channel for the TXOP], establish a secondary TXOP in a non-primary channel [see pg. 4, ¶60 lines 1-17, a TXOP limit value is defined for a secondary channel].
Although ONG discloses establish a secondary TXOP in a non-primary channel, ONG does not explicitly teach “transmitting a data frame to a second STA during the secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel”.
However KNECKT discloses determining a maximum supportable bandwidth of a primary transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a primary channel [see pg. 6, ¶43 lines 1-37, the wireless device “114” extracts the value of the Duration field in the header and compares the value of the Duration field with a reference duration value. The reference duration value is the maximum duration of the TXOP allowed for the TXOPs containing a frame allowing the overlapping transmissions (TXOP Limit for “HitMe”)];
responsive to a determination that the maximum supportable bandwidth of the primary TXOP is smaller than a maximum supportable bandwidth of the STA [see pg. 6, ¶43 lines 1-37, if the value of the Duration field is lower than the maximum duration of the TXOP applicable to the received frame], establishing a secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel [see pg. 6, ¶43 lines 1-37, the wireless device “114” determines that the higher CCA threshold is applicable only for the duration of the frame]; and
transmitting a data frame to a second STA during the secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel [see pg. 6, ¶45 lines 1-20, the first wireless device sends the frame allowing overlapping transmissions].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “transmitting a data frame to a second STA during the secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel” as taught by KNECKT in the system of ONG for allowing overlapping transmissions and improving spectrum efficiency without inducing interference [see KNECKT, pg. 1, ¶2 lines 1-9].
Regarding Claims 2 and 16,
The combined system of ONG and KNECKT discloses the wireless device of claim 15.
ONG further discloses wherein the maximum supportable bandwidth of the primary TXOP is determined based on capability information or protocol version information advertised by one or more STAs involved in the primary TXOP [see pg. 4, ¶59 lines 1-5, a value for this primary channel TXOP limit is obtained from the "TXOP Limit" field “910” of the AC-specific EDCA parameter record “900”].
Regarding Claims 3 and 17,
The combined system of ONG and KNECKT discloses the wireless device of claim 15.
ONG further discloses wherein the primary TXOP is established based on a request-to-send (RTS) frame and clear-to-send (CTS) frame exchange between STAs involved in the primary TXOP [see pg. 1, ¶27 lines 1-8, the basic 802.11 MAC layer uses the distributed coordination function (DCF) to share the medium between multiple stations “10”, “30”. The DCF relies on carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) and handshaking with request to send (RTS) and clear to send (CTS) frames to share the medium between stations].
Regarding Claim 4,
ONG discloses the method of claim 1.
ONG does not explicitly teach the primary TXOP is established “based on a transmission of a trigger frame by an access point (AP) involved in the primary TXOP”.
However KNECKT discloses the primary TXOP is established based on a transmission of a trigger frame by an access point (AP) involved in the primary TXOP [see pg. 2, ¶21 lines 1-8, a wireless device (i.e., an access point (AP)) initiating a TXOP, transmits a frame that triggers a network allocation vector (NAV)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the primary TXOP is established “based on a transmission of a trigger frame by an access point (AP) involved in the primary TXOP” as taught by KNECKT in the system of ONG for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5,
ONG discloses the method of claim 4.
ONG does not explicitly teach “the trigger frame is a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame”.
However KNECKT discloses the trigger frame is a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame [see pg. 2, ¶21 lines 1-8, the trigger frame is a control frame such as a request-to-send (RTS) frame or a data frame].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the trigger frame is a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame” as taught by KNECKT in the system of ONG for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combined system of ONG and KNECKT discloses the method of claim 1.
ONG further discloses the maximum supportable bandwidth of the primary TXOP is 80 Megahertz (MHz) and the maximum supportable bandwidth of the STA is 160 MHz [see pg. 4, ¶62 lines 1-7, the parameter set “102” comprises bandwidth-specific factor values “106”, “108”, “110”, in this example for 40 MHz band, 80 MHz band and 160 MHz band, respectively].
Regarding Claim 10,
The combined system of ONG and KNECKT discloses the method of claim 9.
ONG further discloses the primary channel is a primary 80 MHz channel that includes a primary 20 MHz channel and the non-primary channel is a secondary 80 MHz channel that does not include the primary 20 MHz channel [see pg. 6, ¶94 lines 1-7, the TXOP holder occupies only the bandwidths of 20 and 40 MHz (primary and secondary channels), but not the bandwidth of 80 MHz (tertiary and quarternary channels) as the measured TXOP duration has exceeded the TXOP limit of the tertiary and quaternary channels].
Regarding Claim 11,
The combined system of ONG and KNECKT discloses the method of claim 1
ONG further discloses wherein establishing the secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel [see pg. 4, ¶60 lines 1-17, defining a TXOP limit value for the secondary channel] comprises:
transmitting a request-to-send (RTS) frame to the second STA during the primary TXOP in the non-primary channel [see pg. 2, ¶35 lines 1-21, the expected TXOP duration is included in a duration field of a request to send (RTS) message]; and
receiving a clear-to-send (CTS) frame from the second STA during the primary TXOP in the non-primary channel [see pg. 2, ¶35 lines 1-21, when a CTS message is received for the RTS, the NAV protection is established on all the channels that carried these messages and the operation in each specific channel is fully compatible with existing 802.11 systems].
Regarding Claim 12,
The combined system of ONG and KNECKT discloses the method of claim 1.
ONG discloses the method further comprising:
responsive to the determination that the maximum supportable bandwidth of the primary TXOP is smaller than the maximum supportable bandwidth of the STA [see pg. 4, ¶60 lines 1-17, on the basis of a TXOP parameter associated in the set with bandwidth available by the respective secondary channel for the TXOP], setting a network allocation vector (NAV) in the primary channel that lasts for a remainder of the primary TXOP [see pg. 5, ¶83 lines 1-11, the calculated duration of the TXOP is included in a duration field of a request to send (RTS) message. This enables network allocation vector (NAV) protection on secondary channels for primary users and is fully compatible with existing 802.11 systems].
Regarding Claim 13,
The combined system of ONG and KNECKT discloses the method of claim 1.
ONG further discloses the STA and the second STA are non-AP STAs [see pg. 1, ¶25 lines 1-9, the wireless device (i.e., non-AP STAs) “10”, “30” is/are capable to operate “18” in independent BSS (IBSS), and operate according to principles of IBSS network, whereby no AP “20” is involved].
Regarding Claim 14,
The combined system of ONG and KNECKT discloses the method of claim 1.
ONG further discloses the STA is an AP STA and the second STA is a non-AP STA [see pg. 1, ¶25 lines 1-9, wireless device (i.e., non-AP STAs) “10”, “30” associate with an access point (AP) or base station “20”].
Regarding Claim 18,
ONG discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions [see pg. 6, ¶120 lines 1-7, a memory storing a program], which when executed by a wireless device implementing a station (STA) in a wireless network cause the STA to perform operations [see pg. 6, ¶120 lines 1-7, the program implemented by a processor of an apparatus or STA for executing a method] comprising:
determine a maximum supportable bandwidth of a primary transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a primary channel [see pg. 4, ¶58 lines 1-4, when there is a need to transmit and define properties of a TXOP, the stored TXOP limit information is retrieved, e.g. after detecting “810” information on available channels and bandwidth]; and
responsive to a determination that the maximum supportable bandwidth of the primary TXOP is smaller than a maximum supportable bandwidth of the STA [see pg. 4, ¶60 lines 1-17, on the basis of a TXOP parameter associated in the set with bandwidth available by the respective secondary channel for the TXOP], establish a secondary TXOP in a non-primary channel [see pg. 4, ¶60 lines 1-17, a TXOP limit value is defined for a secondary channel].
Although ONG discloses establish a secondary TXOP in a non-primary channel, ONG does not explicitly teach “transmitting a data frame to a second STA during the secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel”.
However KNECKT discloses determining a maximum supportable bandwidth of a primary transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a primary channel [see pg. 6, ¶43 lines 1-37, the wireless device “114” extracts the value of the Duration field in the header and compares the value of the Duration field with a reference duration value. The reference duration value is the maximum duration of the TXOP allowed for the TXOPs containing a frame allowing the overlapping transmissions (TXOP Limit for “HitMe”)];
responsive to a determination that the maximum supportable bandwidth of the primary TXOP is smaller than a maximum supportable bandwidth of the STA [see pg. 6, ¶43 lines 1-37, if the value of the Duration field is lower than the maximum duration of the TXOP applicable to the received frame], establishing a secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel [see pg. 6, ¶43 lines 1-37, the wireless device “114” determines that the higher CCA threshold is applicable only for the duration of the frame]; and
transmitting a data frame to a second STA during the secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel [see pg. 6, ¶45 lines 1-20, the first wireless device sends the frame allowing overlapping transmissions].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “transmitting a data frame to a second STA during the secondary TXOP in the non-primary channel” as taught by KNECKT in the system of ONG for allowing overlapping transmissions and improving spectrum efficiency without inducing interference [see KNECKT, pg. 1, ¶2 lines 1-9].
Regarding Claim 19,
ONG discloses the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18.
ONG does not explicitly teach the primary TXOP is established “based on a transmission of a trigger frame by an access point (AP) involved in the primary TXOP”.
However KNECKT discloses the primary TXOP is established based on a transmission of a trigger frame by an access point (AP) involved in the primary TXOP [see pg. 2, ¶21 lines 1-8, a wireless device (i.e., an access point (AP)) initiating a TXOP, transmits a frame that triggers a network allocation vector (NAV)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the primary TXOP is established “based on a transmission of a trigger frame by an access point (AP) involved in the primary TXOP” as taught by KNECKT in the system of ONG for the same motivation as set forth in claim 18.
Regarding Claims 20,
ONG discloses the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 19.
ONG does not explicitly teach “the trigger frame is a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame”.
However KNECKT discloses the trigger frame is a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame [see pg. 2, ¶21 lines 1-8, the trigger frame is a control frame such as a request-to-send (RTS) frame or a data frame].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the trigger frame is a multi-user request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame” as taught by KNECKT in the system of ONG for the same motivation as set forth in claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication: Park (US 2020/0413465 A1);
see fig. 6, pg. 5, ¶70-¶75.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSHIL P SAMPAT whose telephone number is (469) 295-9141. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8 AM - 5 PM).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUSHIL P. SAMPAT/Primary Examiner- TC 2400, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights