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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,4, 6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL): "Low latency channel access", IEEE DRAFT; 11-23-1065-00-OUHR-LOW-LATENCY-CHANNEL ACCESS, IEEE-SA MENTOR, PISCATAWAY, NJ USA vol. 802.11 UHR 10 July 2023 (2023-07-10), pages 1-30, XP068204146, Retrieved from the Internet: URLhtps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-1065-00-0ubhr- low-latency-channel-access.pptx [retrieved on 2023-07-10]
For independent claim 1, LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL): "Low latency channel access", IEEE DRAFT; 11-23-1065-00-OUHR-LOW-LATENCY-CHANNEL ACCESS, IEEE-SA MENTOR, PISCATAWAY, NJ USA vol. 802.11 UHR 10 July 2023 (2023-07-10), pages 1-30, XP068204146 discloses a system/method comprising :
device, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to: generate a defer signal to be used with a prioritized access of the device (slide 7, Proposal would be to isolate STAs with prioritized access from the rest of the STAs at the beginning of a contention period. Achieve this by allowing these STAs to transmit a Defer Signal at the beginning of a contention period to force all STAs that are not sending the Defer Signal to have CCA busy and not participate in the contention period"); include a rate field and a length field in the defer signal (The contribution discloses on slide 8 that the defer signal is composed of STF, LTF and SIG fields. It is implicit that the SIG field indicates both the data rate and the length of the packet."); and instruct to send the defer signal to defer transmissions of one or more station devices, STAs, for a duration of time (slide 7, Achieve this by allowing these STAs to transmit a Defer Signal at the beginning of a contention period to force all STAs that are not sending the Defer Signal to have CCA busy and not participate in the contention period").
For independent claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as indicating in claim 1.
For dependent claims 2,6-9,10,12,13, and 15, LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) also discloses:
For Claim 2, LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) also discloses wherein the defer signal is composed of a Legacy Short Training Field (L-STF), a Legacy Long Training Field (L-LTF), and a Legacy Signal Field (L-SIG) ( See "Defer signal i.e. STF/LTF/SIG");
For Clams 6-9, LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) also discloses wherein the defer signal comprises a frame comprising one of a Request-to-Send (RTS) frame or a Clear-to-Send (CTS) frame; wherein the frame comprises a duration field that is set to indicate an end of the duration of time; and wherein the frame comprises a predefined broadcast address for Receiver Address (RA) and Transmitter Address (TA) fields ( See (slide 11) .
The factual inquiries 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.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) in view of Nam et al. (2016/0157218).
For Claims 18-20, LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes in a communications network. Nam et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of the memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes ( See paragraphs 0014 and 0052). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes as taught by Nam et al. in the communication network of LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) for the purpose of storing codes in the memory to execute the process by the processor.
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 3,5,11,and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) in view of Laurent Cariou ( 2023/096482).
For Claims 3,5,11,and 17,LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein rate field and the length field indicate a time that corresponds to an end of a defer time following the defer signal and wherein defer signal comprises a signal (SIG), field and a frame check sequence (FCS) field, wherein the SIG field is configured to fail an FCS check associated with the defer signal in a communications network.
Laurent Cariou ( 2023/096482) from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein rate field and the length field indicate a time that corresponds to an end of a defer time following the defer signal and wherein defer signal comprises a signal (SIG), field and a frame check sequence (FCS) field, wherein the SIG field is configured to fail an FCS check associated with the defer signal in a communications network ( See paragraph 0077). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein rate field and the length field indicate a time that corresponds to an end of a defer time following the defer signal and wherein defer signal comprises a signal (SIG), field and a frame check sequence (FCS) field, wherein the SIG field is configured to fail an FCS check associated with the defer signal in a communications network as taught by Laurent Cariou ( 2023/096482) in the communications network of LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL for the purpose of defining the defer signal.
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 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL).
For dependent claims 4 and 16, LAURENT CARIOU (INTEL) discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the rate field is set to a value other than 6 megabits per second. However, the rate field is set to a value other than 6 megabits per second is well-known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein the rate field is set to a value other than 6 megabits per second as well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the communication network of Lauren Cariou( Intel) as the matter of the design choice.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chu et al. (2025/0344241) is cited to show a system which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANG T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-3171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 5:30 AM to 3:00 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/DANG T TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /D.T.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights