DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to 10/25/2024.
Claims 25-44 are pending.
Claims 25, 32-34, 36-41, and 43-44 are rejected.
Claims 26-31, 35, and 42 are objected to.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 25, 32-34, 36-41, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boger et al. US 20180077726 A1, hereinafter Boger, in view of Liu et al. US 20160360420 A1 (as cited in IDS as EP 3304963 B1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 25, Boger discloses a method, in a wireless communication device, of controlling wireless transmissions in a wireless communication system (Boger see Fig. 2), the method comprising:
(Boger [0004] Typically, the electronic device selects a random back-off value N between 0 and the CW. Furthermore, the back-off time in the electronic device usually expires only when the communication medium is idle for a time duration greater than the AIFS plus N slots; Fig. 5, [0068] discloses an exemplary timing diagram illustrating channel access by the electronic devices of FIG. 1 in different slots … STA 1 may select one of the available, free, or unoccupied back-off values; which creates non-adjacent time slots and TX opportunities on the channel are shared by the stations); and
in at least one of the time slots from the set, attempting to access a wireless channel shared with one or more other wireless communication devices after, based on sensing the wireless channel, assessing the wireless channel as being unoccupied (Boger at least [0004] discloses an electronic device in the WLAN is usually only allowed to transmit once a physical channel clear assessment (CCA) and a virtual CCA or carrier-sensing technique (such as the network allocation vector or NAV) are both clear).
Boger fails to explicitly disclose the method based on assignment of time slots to groups of wireless communication devices such that a different set of non-adjacent time slots is assigned to each of the groups.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu more specifically discloses based on assignment of time slots to groups of wireless communication devices such that a different set of non-adjacent time slots is assigned to each of the groups (Liu at least [0105] discloses subframe allocation based on different sets of UEs).
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 teachings of Boger with the teachings of Liu to prevent conflict between base stations, where a base station and the one or more other base stations may be within communication range of a same UE.
Regarding Claim 32, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the sensing of the wireless channel is performed for a random-based number of time slots (Boger at least [0004] discloses selecting a random back-off value N between 0 and the CW).
Regarding Claim 33, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 32. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein a window for drawing the random-based number of time slots is increased in response to the wireless communication device encountering a collision when attempting to access the wireless channel (Boger at least [0004] discloses if the back-off timers in two electronic devices reach a back-off value of zero concurrently, a transmit collision occurs, and the CW is typically doubled).
Regarding Claim 34, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the wireless communication device attempts to access the wireless channel in the in at least one of the time slots from the set in response to determining that a random access message from the wireless communication device did not experience collision (Boger at least [0004] discloses random access in a shared communication channel by stations; Fig. 5 and [0068] discloses transmitting of a frame and receipt of acknowledgment).
Regarding Claim 36, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the set of non-adjacent time slots differs from time slots allowed to be used by at least one of the one or more other wireless communication devices when attempting to access the wireless channel (Boger at least Fig. 5, [0068] discloses a station may select one of the unoccupied back-off values).
Regarding Claim 37, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the wireless communication device determines the set of non-adjacent time slots based on signaling from at least one of the one or more other wireless communication devices (Boger at least Fig. 5, [0068] discloses a station may select one of the unoccupied back-off values; Fig. 4, [0059] discloses updating a list of known occupied back-off values in memory).
Regarding Claim 38, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the wireless communication device determines the set of non-adjacent time slots based on negotiation with at least one of the one or more other wireless communication devices (Boger at least Fig. 5, [0068] discloses a station may select one of the unoccupied back-off values; Fig. 4, [0059] discloses updating a list of known occupied back-off values in memory).
Regarding Claim 39, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the set of non-adjacent time slots is defined based on a numbering of the time slots (Boger at least Fig. 5, [0068] discloses back-off values, each values indexed in hexadecimal).
Regarding Claim 40, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the set of non-adjacent time slots is defined with respect to a time slot in which the wireless channel is first assessed as being unoccupied (Boger at least Fig. 5, [0068-0070] discloses having the lowest (or earliest) back-off value).
Regarding Claim 41, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the wireless channel is usable for data transmissions by the wireless communication device and the one or more other wireless communication devices (Boger [0048] discloses receiving wireless signals 216 encoding a packet or a frame).
Regarding Claim 43, Boger in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 25. In the obvious combination, Boger further discloses wherein the wireless communication system is based on a Wireless Local Area Network technology according to the IEEE 802.11 standards family (Boger at least [0034] discloses the contention avoidance technique(s) may be used during wireless communication between electronic devices in accordance with a communication protocol, such as an IEEE 802.11 standard).
Claim 44 is rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claim 25. Claim 44 recites similar features as in claim 25 for an apparatus of a wireless communication device (Boger Fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-31, 35, and 42 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boger et al. US 20200107263 A1
Borges et al. US 20200288326 A1
Abraham et al. US 9763267 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEWON KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, GARY MUI can be reached at (571)270-1420. 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.
/Y.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights