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
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 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.
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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al (US 20240349319) in view of Fang et al (US 20240022383) hereinafter ‘Alexander’.
As to claim 1 Fang discloses a wireless device comprising (Fang Fig.7): a wireless transceiver to receive and transmit frames; and a controller operably coupled to the wireless transceiver to process the frames (Fang ¶0097- an apparatus of or used by the wireless device 700 may include various components of the wireless device 700 as shown in FIG. 7 and/or components from FIGS. 1-6.… the wireless device 700 is configured to decode and/or encode signals, packets, and/or frames as described herein, e.g., PPDUs), wherein the controller is configured to, in response to an enablement of a low-latency preemption from another wireless device, and transmit a request for a low-latency preemption; (Fang, Fig.13, ¶0141- One or more LL transmitters, STA 904, can indicate that it has LL packets to send by sending a common (preemption request) PR 1328, PR 1409 control frame over assigned dedicated RU, which is integrated with BA 1324 or UL TB PPDU 1408, respectively, where other STAs 1002 may have RUs within the BA 1324 and UL TB PPDU 1408. The LL transmitters may only send the PR 1328 and PR 1409 if TXOP preemption is allowed,). Fang however is silent where enablement is of a low latency preemption mode and transmitting a low-latency frame to the another wireless device- a low latency preemption mode example interpreted as using the indication in its PPDU, the TXOP responder is allowed by the TXOP holder to do the low-latency preemption in its TXOP .However, in an analogous art Alexander remedies this deficiency: Alexander ¶0050-a low latency preemption system may apply for case when the AP is the TXOP holder ; Alexander ¶0040- The low latency (LL) transmitter is the TXOP holder or TXOP responder, as shown in FIG. 2 once the AP obtains the channel, it can start a long DL PPDU transmission. If later a LL packet arrives at the AP for another STA, the AP needs to wait until the end of the current DL transmission to send the LL packet, which will lead to a large delay in the LL application) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective fling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fang with that of Alexander for the purpose of applying a preemption mode for establishing that preemption is permitted.
As to claim 2 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the another device is a transmission opportunity (TXOP) holder and wherein the controller is configured to transmit the low-latency frame during a TXOP of the TXOP holder (Alexander ¶0050-a low latency preemption system may apply for case when the AP is the TXOP holder and use the TXOP for DL PPDU transmission or UL trigger based PPDU transmission.).
As to claim 5 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the request for a low-latency preemption after an announcement of the low-latency preemption mode through a management frame by an access point (Fang ¶0128- the first control frame, such as the RTS 910 frame of the TXOP 908 will indicate whether preemption is allowed or not within the TXOP 908. In some embodiments, the Maximum PPDU length will be indicated and updated in the beacon frames, other management frames, or other frames sent by the AP 902.).
As to claim 7 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, in response to a frame from an access point that includes an indication for allowing a preemption request frame transmission in a transmission opportunity (TXOP), transmit a preemption request frame as the request for a low-latency preemption (Fang ¶0157; ¶0159- for transmission to the AP after the preemption duration an indication of a preemption request (PR), in response to a determination that a medium is idle during the preemption duration and that the STA has pending low-latency (LL) data to send to the AP.)
As to claim 8 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the wireless device of claim 7, wherein the indication includes at least one of (a) the preemption request frame transmission is allowed a SIFS after the frame (Fang ¶0139- 7th sentence- The AP 902 determines whether to preempt the TXOP 1238 based on the service requests from the LL STAs 904. One or more STAs 904 wait a SIFS 1222 and then transmit UL TB PPDU 1224 in response to the TF 1220. The TF 1220 may have been generated in response to the NFRs 1218 and include UL RU for the LL STAs 904 to transmit LL frames to the AP 902. The AP 902 waits SIFS 1226 and then transmits BA 1230 in response to the UL TB PPDUs 1224.).
As to claim 12 Fang discloses a communications system comprising (Fang Fig.13, and 14): a first wireless device configured to transmit a frame that indicates an enablement of a low-latency preemption (Fang ¶0141- last sentence- the LL transmitters may only send the (preemption request) PR 1328 and PR 1409 if TXOP preemption is allowed, which may be indicated in different ways such as including a PI 1308 or PI 1403 in the MU-BAR 1320 or TF 1404, respectively); and a second wireless device configured to receive frame, wherein the second wireless device is further configured to transmit a request for a low-latency preemption in response to the enablement of the low-latency preemption (Fang ¶0141- One or more LL transmitters, STA 904, can indicate that it has LL packets to send by sending a common (preemption request) PR 1328, PR 1409 control frame over assigned dedicated RU, which is integrated with BA 1324 or UL TB PPDU 1408, respectively, where other STAs 1002 may have RUs within the BA 1324 and UL TB PPDU 1408. The LL transmitters may only send the PR 1328 and PR 1409 if TXOP preemption is allowed,).
Fang however is silent where enablement is of a low latency preemption mode and then to transmit a low-latency frame to the first wireless device during a specified access period of the first wireless device- a low latency preemption mode example interpreted as using the indication in its PPDU, the TXOP responder is allowed by the TXOP holder to do the low-latency preemption in its TXOP .However, in an analogous art Alexander remedies this deficiency: Alexander ¶0050-a low latency preemption system may apply for case when the AP is the TXOP holder ; ¶0040- The low latency (LL) transmitter is the TXOP holder or TXOP responder, as shown in FIG. 2 once the AP obtains the channel, it can start a long DL PPDU transmission. If later a LL packet arrives at the AP for another STA, the AP needs to wait until the end of the current DL transmission to send the LL packet, which will lead to a large delay in the LL application) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fang with that of Alexander for the purpose of applying a preemption mode for establishing that preemption is permitted.
As to claim 13 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the communications system of claim 12, wherein the first device is a transmission opportunity (TXOP) holder and wherein the second device is configured to transmit the low- latency frame during a TXOP of the TXOP holder(Alexander ¶0050-a low latency preemption system may apply for case when the AP is the TXOP holder and use the TXOP for DL PPDU transmission or UL trigger based PPDU transmission.).
As to claim 15 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the communications system of claim 12, wherein the first wireless device is configured to transmit the frame after an announcement of the low-latency preemption mode through a management frame by an access point(Fang ¶0128- the first control frame, such as the RTS 910 frame of the TXOP 908 will indicate whether preemption is allowed or not within the TXOP 908. In some embodiments, the Maximum PPDU length will be indicated and updated in the beacon frames, other management frames, or other frames sent by the AP 902.).
As to claim 17 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the communications system of claim 12, wherein the second wireless device is configured to, in response to a frame from an access point that includes an indication for allowing a preemption request frame transmission in a transmission opportunity (TXOP), transmit a preemption request frame as the request for a low-latency preemption(Fang ¶0157; ¶0159- for transmission to the AP after the preemption duration an indication of a preemption request (PR), in response to a determination that a medium is idle during the preemption duration and that the STA has pending low-latency (LL) data to send to the AP).
As to claim 18 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the communications system of claim 17, wherein the indication includes at least one of (a) the preemption request frame transmission is allowed a SIFS after the frame (Fang ¶0139- 7th sentence- The AP 902 determines whether to preempt the TXOP 1238 based on the service requests from the LL STAs 904. One or more STAs 904 wait a SIFS 1222 and then transmit UL TB PPDU 1224 in response to the TF 1220. The TF 1220 may have been generated in response to the NFRs 1218 and include UL RU for the LL STAs 904 to transmit LL frames to the AP 902. The AP 902 waits SIFS 1226 and then transmits BA 1230 in response to the UL TB PPDUs 1224).
As to claim 20 Fang discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a second wireless device, an enablement of a low-latency preemption from a first wireless device; transmitting, by the second wireless device, a request for a low-latency preemption to the first wireless device(Fang ¶0141- One or more LL transmitters, STA 904, can indicate that it has LL packets to send by sending a common (preemption request) PR 1328, PR 1409 control frame over assigned dedicated RU, which is integrated with BA 1324 or UL TB PPDU 1408, respectively, where other STAs 1002 may have RUs within the BA 1324 and UL TB PPDU 1408. The LL transmitters may only send the PR 1328 and PR 1409 if TXOP preemption is allowed,).; Fang however is silent where enablement is of a low latency preemption mode and transmitting, by the second wireless device, a low-latency frame to the first wireless device during a specified access period of the first wireless device. However, in an analogous art Alexander remedies this deficiency: (Alexander ¶0050-a low latency preemption system may apply for case when the AP is the TXOP holder ; ¶0040- The low latency (LL) transmitter is the TXOP holder or TXOP responder, as shown in FIG. 2 once the AP obtains the channel, it can start a long DL PPDU transmission. If later a LL packet arrives at the AP for another STA, the AP needs to wait until the end of the current DL transmission to send the LL packet, which will lead to a large delay in the LL application) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the teachings of Fang with that of Alexander for the purpose of applying a preemption mode for establishing that preemption is permitted.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang in view of Alexander and further in view of Ciochina-Kar et al (US 20260136386).
As to claim 6 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander discloses the wireless device of claim 1, however silent wherein the controller is configured to receive a preemption disallowed indication from a particular wireless device when the particular wireless device intends to transmit the low-latency frame in a following frame exchange. However, in an analogous art Ciochina-Kar remedies this deficiency: Ciochina-Kar ¶0057- It may represent or include suspension notification, issued by an upper layer or by a management entity of a communication device, which indicates that one or more waiting time intervals, also called preemptive periods (also called suspension interval) herein, should be inserted within the data exchange between the first and second communication devices. During the preemptive periods, the data exchange between the first and second communication devices is temporarily suspended to allow possible reception or transmission of preemptive data units from/to a third communication device. When the suspension notification is issued at the first communication device to indicate a temporary interruption of DL data units to a second communication device, the suspension notification may instruct (e.g. by a PHY layer) to include a suspend indication (also referred to as PSI herein), e.g. within the PPDU immediately preceding the preemptive period and which may be sent to the second communication device as part of the ongoing data exchange. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander with that of Ciochina-Kar for the purpose of suspending a data exchange between communication devices during an ongoing TXOP to serve STAs with latency constraints (Ciochina-Kar – Abstract).
As to claim 16 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander discloses the communication system of claim 12, however silent wherein the first wireless device is configured to transmit a preemption disallowed indication when the first wireless device intends to transmit a low-latency frame in a following frame exchange. However, in an analogous art Ciochina-Kar remedies this deficiency: Ciochina-Kar ¶0057- It may represent or include suspension notification, issued by an upper layer or by a management entity of a communication device, which indicates that one or more waiting time intervals, also called preemptive periods (also called suspension interval) herein, should be inserted within the data exchange between the first and second communication devices. During the preemptive periods, the data exchange between the first and second communication devices is temporarily suspended to allow possible reception or transmission of preemptive data units from/to a third communication device. When the suspension notification is issued at the first communication device to indicate a temporary interruption of DL data units to a second communication device, the suspension notification may instruct (e.g. by a PHY layer) to include a suspend indication (also referred to as PSI herein), e.g. within the PPDU immediately preceding the preemptive period and which may be sent to the second communication device as part of the ongoing data exchange. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander with that of Ciochina-Kar for the purpose of suspending a data exchange between communication devices during an ongoing TXOP to serve STAs with latency constraints (Ciochina-Kar – Abstract).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang in view of Alexander and further in view of Noh et al (US 20170094685).
As to claim 9 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the wireless device of claim 7, however silent wherein the controller is configured to obtain an information of a length of the immediate response frame by decoding a legacy signaling (L-SIG) field of a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) including an immediate response frame. However, in an analogous art Noh remedies this deficiency: Noh ¶0052- an AP can determine that a PPDU is received as an immediate response to a trigger frame previously transmitted by the AP based on information included in the L-SIG field (e.g. the length of the received PPDU).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander with that of Noh for the purpose of determining a length of an immediate response from a received PPDU.
As to claim 19 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the communications system of claim 17, however silent wherein the second wireless device is configured to obtain an information of a length of the immediate response frame by decoding a legacy signaling (L-SIG) field of a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) including an immediate response frame. However, in an analogous art Noh remedies this deficiency: (Noh ¶0052- an AP can determine that a PPDU is received as an immediate response to a trigger frame previously transmitted by the AP based on information included in the L-SIG field (e.g. the length of the received PPDU) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander with that of Noh for the purpose of determining a length of an immediate response from a received PPDU.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang in view of Alexander and further in view of Merlin et al (US 20170094685).
As to claim 10 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the wireless device of claim 7, however silent wherein the indication is included in a physical layer (PHY) header of the frame. However, in an analogous art Merlin remedies this deficiency: (Merlin ¶0067- Certain MAC frames may solicit an immediate response. For example, a data frame may solicit an acknowledgment (ACK) as an immediate response, a request-to-send (RTS) frame may solicit a clear-to-send (CTS) frame as an immediate response, etc. A request frame (e.g., physical layer convergence protocol (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU)) may have a PHY header and a MAC payload (e.g., a MAC protocol data unit (MPDU)). A request PPDU may solicit an immediate response. A response PPDU having a PHY header and an MPDU may be sent in response to the request PPDU after a SIFS). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander with that of Merlin for the purpose of enabling an immediate response (Merlin ¶0065).
As to claim 11 the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander disclose the wireless device of claim 7, however silent wherein the indication indicates whether a preemption request frame is allowed to be transmitted and an immediate response frame for the frame is to be transmitted by a recipient of the frame. However, in an analogous art Merlin remedies this deficiency: (Merlin ¶0053- FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of a system 100 in which aspects of the present disclosure may be performed. For example, the access point 110 may send a user terminal 120 a request frame 102 (e.g., a PPDU) having an indication in a PHY header of the request frame that an immediate response is to be sent. A recipient user terminal 120 may determine, based on the indication, that a response is to be sent and may begin generating and transmitting at least a portion of an immediate response 104, for example, before decoding the MAC payload of the request frame 102).. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Fang and Alexander with that of Merlin for the purpose of determining whether a preemption request frame is allowed to be transmitted and an immediate response frame for the frame is to be transmitted by a recipient of the frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERRICK V ROSE whose telephone number is (571)270-7460. The examiner can normally be reached 9am- 6pm.
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, YEMANE MESFIN can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/DERRICK V ROSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights