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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hedayat et al. (US 2023/0105675).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and17, Hedayat discloses a method and system (see WiFI frame exchange between AP / STAs in Figs.13,14), comprising a memory storage or a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions and a processing unit disposed in a first computing device and coupled to the memory storage, the method including:
receiving, by an Access Point (AP), an irregular absence report from a station (paragraph 154 with reference to Fig.13 disclosing scheduling UL transmissions: “STA 1306 sends frame 1344 to the AP 1308. Frame 1344 carries control information element(s) [equated to the "irregular absence report"] recommending sub-channels/RUs to be assigned for UL MU for the upcoming time interval 1346 there are no anticipated IDC problems, as there are no expected PDSCH resources expected to be used by UE 1304 in time range 1346, thus the control information in frame 1344 indicates to the AP that it may schedule UL MU on any of the resources sub-channels (e.g., both upper and lower 20 MHz sub-channels are recommended)”);
parsing, by the AP, the irregular absence report to determine upcoming absence periods of the station for non-Peer-to-Peer (P2P) traffic (implicitly disclosed in view of the following cited passages); and
scheduling, by the AP, Transmit Opportunity's (TxOPs) of the non-P2P traffic to the station based on the determined upcoming absence periods (see paras.155-158 with reference to Fig.13 showing "TXOP(s) consisting of UL MU frames addressing the STA": "The AP 1308 schedules UL MU using some or all of the recommended subchannels (both upper and lower 20 MHz sub-channels are recommended and available to be used) via trigger frame 1348. In response, STA 1306 sends UL MU transmission 1350 to the WiFi AP. 1308 using scheduled resources. The AP 1308 schedules UL MU using some or all of the recommended subchannels (both upper and lower 20 MHz sub-channels are recommended and available to be used) via trigger frame 1352. In response, STA 1306 sends UL MU transmission 1354 to the WIFi AP 1308 using scheduled resources. The AP 1308 schedules UL MU using some or all of the recommended subchannels (both upper and lower 20 MHz sub-channels are recommended and available to be used) via trigger frame 1356. In response, STA 1306 sends UL MU transmission 1358 to the WIFI AP 1308 using scheduled resources. It should be appreciated that IDC has beenavoided by limiting the STA WiFi UL MU transmissions in frames 1334, 1338 to the lower 20 MHz sub-channel since the upper 20 MHz sub-channel is being used by the UE 1304 to receive PDSCH signals").
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Hedayat discloses that scheduling the TxOPs of the non-P2P traffic to the station based on the upcoming absence periods comprises scheduling the TxOPs to the station to entirely avoid the upcoming absence periods (paragraph 11).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Hedayat discloses that scheduling the TxOPs of the non-P2P traffic to the station based on the upcoming absence periods comprises scheduling the TxOPs to the station to substantially avoid the upcoming absence periods (paragraph 140).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 18, Hedayat discloses that parsing the irregular absence report comprises parsing an absence mode of each upcoming absence period of the station, wherein the absence mode comprises one of: a first absence mode indicating that the station can receive but not transmit during the upcoming absence period; a second absence mode indicating that the station can neither receive nor transmit during the upcoming absence period; and a third absence mode indicating that the station cannot receive but can transmit during the upcoming absence period (paragraph 172).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Hedayat discloses scheduling the TxOPs of the non-P2P traffic to the station based on the upcoming absence periods comprises scheduling, for an upcoming absence period with the first absence mode, at least one of the following: groupcast TxOPs; and no acknowledgement TxOPs (paragraph 174).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Hedayat discloses scheduling the TxOPs of the non-P2P traffic to the station based on the absence periods comprises scheduling, for an upcoming absence period with the first absence mode, the TxOPs such that transmission ends at or after the upcoming absence period (paragraph 154).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 19, Hedayat discloses that parsing the irregular absence report comprises determining an interruptible indication of an upcoming absence period, wherein the interruptible indication indicates that the station is available for interruption by the AP when the AP has a higher priority traffic for the station than P2P traffic for which the station is absent (paragraph 155).
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 20, Hedayat discloses that receiving the irregular absence report comprises receiving the irregular absence report in response to the station detecting that it is subject to an intermittent in-device coexistence (paragraph 187).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights