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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/15/2025 and 4/14/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claim 36 recites the limitation "the second time period" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 31, 35-36, 38-41, 44-45 and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0127307 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Huang discloses a device (See Huang; Fig. 5; First AP 110), comprising: at least one processor (See Huang; Fig. 8; Processor 806); and at least one memory storing instructions (See Huang; Fig. 8; Memory 808) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device at least to:
transmit latency information to at least one other device for adjusting a channel occupancy time, COT, of the at least one other device (See Par. [83], [87], [94], [105] of Huang for a reference to the first AP transmits its traffic QoS [latency] requirements to the neighboring second AP [other device]; the TXOP [COT in Wi-Fi terms] of the other device is limited based on it. The transmitted message expressly carries latency information AP-to-AP so the receiving AP adjusts its own TXOP/COT), the latency information being associated with a first maximum tolerable latency for a first data transmission performed by the device on an unlicensed spectrum (See Par. [71], [86] of Huang for a reference to Latency information is associated with a maximum latency tolerance [maximum tolerable latency] of the device's traffic. Data transmission performed on unlicensed spectrum).
Regarding claim 35, Huang discloses wherein the latency information is indicative of the first maximum tolerable latency (See Par. [14], [86] of Huang for a reference to transmitting traffic classification information, which includes the latency value [mapped to maximum latency tolerance] directly includes the latency requirement).
Regarding claim 36, Huang discloses wherein the device is further configured to:
update the latency information based on a second maximum tolerable latency for a second data transmission to be performed (See Par. [115] of Huang for a reference to the wireless communication device may determine a maximum latency value for the traffic. As examples, the latency value may be 75 milliseconds when the type of traffic is VoIP traffic, video conferencing traffic, or gaming traffic. The latency value may be longer (such as 6 seconds) when the type of traffic is internet video streaming traffic), wherein the second maximum tolerable latency is different from the first maximum tolerable latency (See Par. [87], [115] of Huang for a reference to different traffic (second data transmission) has a different maximum tolerable latency); and
transmit, to the at least one other device, updated latency information indicating the second time period (See Par. [87], [120] of Huang for a reference to latency information tracks the current traffic pattern, it is updated as traffic changes and re-sent. Iterative re-classification / re-signaling for subsequent traffic is performed).
Regarding claim 38, Huang discloses wherein at least one of the first data transmission or the second data transmission comprises a low latency communication traffic (See Par. [62], [81] of Huang for a reference to first BSS (formed by the first AP 110 and the first STA 114) may have VoIP traffic 445A, 445B, and 445C which has a QoS latency requirement. The multi-AP controller may receive traffic classification information from one or more APs indicating latency-sensitive traffic [First data transmission is low-latency traffic]).
Regarding claim 39, Huang discloses wherein the first maximum tolerable latency comprises at least one of: a third latency for one time of data transmission of the data traffic; or a fourth latency for survival time of the data traffic (See Par. [92], [115] of Huang for a reference to the wireless communication device may determine a maximum latency value for the traffic. As examples, the latency value may be 75 milliseconds when the type of traffic is VoIP traffic to prevent those APs from holding their respective shared channels beyond a maximum latency tolerance of the traffic [Latency bound for a (single) transmission of the traffic; first alternative is cited]).
Regarding claim 40, Huang discloses the device of claim 31, further comprising a transceiver (See Huang; Fig. 8; Radio 804; See par. [99] of Huang for a reference to the radio 804 generally includes at least one radio frequency (RF) transmitter (or “transmitter chain”) and at least one RF receiver (or “receiver chain”), which may be combined into one or more transceivers).
Regarding claim 41, Huang discloses a device (See Huang; Fig. 5; Second AP 120), comprising: at least one processor (See Huang; Fig. 8; Processor 806); and at least one memory storing instructions (See Huang; Fig. 8; Memory 808) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device at least to:
receive, from another device, latency information for adjusting a channel occupancy time, COT, of the device (See Par. [83], [87], [94], [105] of Huang for a reference to the second AP receives its traffic QoS [latency] requirements from the first AP; the TXOP [COT in Wi-Fi terms] of the other device is limited based on it. The transmitted message expressly carries latency information AP-to-AP so the receiving AP adjusts its own TXOP/COT), the latency information being associated with a first maximum tolerable latency for a first data transmission performed by the other device on an unlicensed spectrum (See Par. [71], [86] of Huang for a reference to Latency information is associated with a maximum latency tolerance [maximum tolerable latency] of the device's traffic. Data transmission performed on unlicensed spectrum); and
in response to determining, based on the latency information, that a channel occupancy time, COT, preconfigured for the unlicensed spectrum is unable to support the first maximum tolerable latency, determine a different COT for data communication to be performed (See Par. [77], [104], [120]-[121] of Huang for a reference to that after recognizing that the existing TXOP cannot support the latency tolerance, determining a new (shorter) TXOP is applied only when the default is inadequate. There are different CW and TXOP durations for each of the four access categories (ACs): voice (AC_VO), video (AC_VI), background (AC_BK), and best effort (AC_BE) [Different COT (TXOP limit) determined and applied] ).
Regarding claim 44, Huang discloses wherein the latency information is indicative of a first COT of the other device for the first data transmission, and the device is further configured to: determine the first COT as the different COT (See Par. [94], [121], [148] of Huang for a reference to receiving device bounds its own channel occupancy by the COT indicated by the other device, i.e., adopts the indicated COT. Message carries a TXOP value that the receiver applies. Indicated TXOP adopted as the new (different) COT).
Regarding claim 45, Huang discloses wherein the device is further configured to perform data communication based on the different COT (See Par. [87], [131] of Huang for a reference to communication performed using the adjusted TXOP. Data communication based on the different COT).
Regarding claim 48, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 38.
Regarding claim 49, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 39.
Regarding claim 50, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 40.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 32-34 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Zhang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2018/0324851 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is further configured to transmit the latency information in a preamble for the first data transmission.
However, Zhang discloses wherein the device is further configured to transmit the latency information in a preamble for the first data transmission (See Par. [38], [124] of Zhang for a reference to channel-occupancy information for the station's own transmission is carried in the HE-SIG-A field of the PHY preamble of the data PPDU. Overlapping-BSS devices can read preamble information without decoding the MAC payload)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang to Huang. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by increasing the efficiency of the indication of TXOP duration used for notifying the other station of the remaining time of using the channel by the station. (Zhang; Par. [38])
Regarding claim 33, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the preamble comprises a Wi-Fi preamble.
However, Zhang discloses wherein the preamble comprises a Wi-Fi preamble (See Par. [35], [72] of Zhang for a reference to that HE-SIG-A is part of the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) preamble [identifying the 802.11ax Wi-Fi preamble fields including HE-SIG-A])
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang to Huang. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by increasing the efficiency of the indication of TXOP duration used for notifying the other station of the remaining time of using the channel by the station. (Zhang; Par. [38])
Regarding claim 34, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the latency information is indicative of a first channel occupancy time, COT, of the device for the first data transmission.
However, Zhang discloses wherein the latency information is indicative of a first channel occupancy time, COT, of the device for the first data transmission (See Par. [36], [141] of Zhang for a reference to TXOP duration indicates the remaining time during which a channel is available for using by the station, such as 3 ms. Transmitting a PPDU carrying a TXOP field in the HE-SIGA of the PPDU, the TXOP field is used for notifying the other stations of the remaining time of the station usage channel)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang to Huang. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by increasing the efficiency of the indication of TXOP duration used for notifying the other station of the remaining time of using the channel by the station. (Zhang; Par. [38])
Regarding claim 42, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 32.
Regarding claim 43, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 33.
Claim 37 and 46-47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Lan et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0296763 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is further configured to: transmit a release indication for the maximum tolerable latency, the release indication being indicative of releasing a requirement for the maximum tolerable latency.
However, Lan discloses transmit a release indication for the maximum tolerable latency, the release indication being indicative of releasing a requirement for the maximum tolerable latency (See Par. [26], [30], [33] of Lan for a reference to the device transmits an explicit indication releasing a temporarily imposed channel-access (TXOP/EDCA) restriction. The AP may signal the STA or STAs that the current MU EDCA timeout period is terminated by transmitting a termination signal)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lan to Huang. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by allowing for early termination of MU EDCA parameters on a per-STA and/or per-AC basis, reducing delay in such cases compared to systems that must wait for expiration of the MU EDCA parameter timeout period. (Lan; Par. [33])
Regarding claim 46, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is further configured to: in response to detecting a first timer being expired, perform data communication based on the COT preconfigured for the unlicensed spectrum, the expiration of the first timer being detected based on at least one of: receiving a release indication for the maximum tolerable latency, the release indication being indicative of releasing a requirement for the maximum tolerable latency; receiving updated latency information associated with a second maximum tolerable latency, wherein the COT preconfigured for the unlicensed spectrum is determined to be able to support the second maximum tolerable latency based on the updated latency information; or a first time length has elapsed.
However, Lan discloses in response to detecting a first timer being expired, perform data communication based on the COT preconfigured for the unlicensed spectrum (See Par. [4], [24] of Lan for a reference to Timer governing how long modified channel-access parameters (incl. TXOP) apply. Modified TXOP applies only until the timer expires [first time length has elapsed alternative]), the expiration of the first timer being detected based on at least one of: receiving a release indication for the maximum tolerable latency, the release indication being indicative of releasing a requirement for the maximum tolerable latency; receiving updated latency information associated with a second maximum tolerable latency (See Par. [3]-[4], [24], [32] of Lan for a reference to legacy EDCA parameters is the preconfigured parameters to which the device reverts. Timer Expiry is based on elapsed time OR on receiving a release (termination) indication [Two alternatives are cited]), wherein the COT preconfigured for the unlicensed spectrum is determined to be able to support the second maximum tolerable latency based on the updated latency information; or a first time length has elapsed (See Par. [3]-[4], [24], [32] of Lan for a reference to the parameter sets may be defined for one or more access categories (ACs), which may have lower priority with respect to legacy EDCA parameters, to favor uplink MU transmissions. Modified TXOP/COT applies only until the timer expires [first time length has elapsed]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lan to Huang. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by allowing for early termination of MU EDCA parameters on a per-STA and/or per-AC basis, reducing delay in such cases compared to systems that must wait for expiration of the MU EDCA parameter timeout period. (Lan; Par. [33])
Regarding claim 47, Huang discloses wherein the first timer is configured to be initiated or re-initiated in response to at least one of: receiving the latency information and determining that the COT preconfigured for the unlicensed spectrum is unable to support the first tolerable maximum latency; or receiving the updated latency information and determining that the COT preconfigured for the unlicensed spectrum is unable to support the second maximum tolerable latency (See Par. [77], [104], [120]-[121] of Huang for a reference to that after recognizing that the existing TXOP cannot support the latency tolerance, determining a new (shorter) TXOP is applied only when the default is inadequate. There are different CW and TXOP durations for each of the four access categories (ACs): voice (AC_VO), video (AC_VI), background (AC_BK), and best effort (AC_BE) [Different COT (TXOP limit) determined and applied] ).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uchino et al. (U.S. 2023/0232214 Al) teaches techniques and apparatuses for reporting of user equipment (UE) capability information.
Rune et al. (US 2022/0183055 Al) teaches a method performed by a wireless device for detecting a downlink radio failure.
Harada et al. (US 2019/0364557 A1) teaches a user terminal and a radio communication method in next-generation mobile communication systems.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights