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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2024 and 03/24/2026 have been placed in record and considered by the examiner.
NOTICE for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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 1-3, 5-9, 13-16, 18-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Cariou; Laurent. (US U20240137983 A1, of IDS, hereinafter ‘CARIOU’).
Regarding claim 1, CARIOU teaches an apparatus (Fig. 7 wireless device 700) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 7 processing circuitry 708); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (
[0094] the processing circuitry 708 may include one or more processors. The processing circuitry 708 may be configured to perform functions based on instructions being stored in a RAM or ROM, …… or the memory 710), cause the apparatus at least to perform:
defining a preemption opportunity (PO) with one or more sub-windows (
Fig. 9, XIFS 910 and XIFS 912, which may be termed preemption windows,
[0107] breaking up PPDUs during a transmission opportunity (TXoP) to provide transmission opportunities for preemption. Additionally, a shorter channel access time during a contention period between the broken up PPDUs is used for requesting preemption. And a preemption request (PR) frame is used..
[0109] Time gaps are left between the transmission of the smaller PPDU to enable a preemption opportunity for the low latency (LL) transmitter.
[0113] The PR 924 and PR 926 may be similar to a clear-to-send (CTS) frame. The LL transmitter, STA 504, has XIFS 910 and XIFS 912, which may be termed preemption windows, to transmit the PR 924 and/or PR 926.), wherein a respective sub-window of the one or more sub-windows is associated with one or more traffic priority values (
[0107] A technical challenge is how to provide services for low-latency traffic. Another technical challenge is how to provide services to an AP 502 or STA 504 when the AP 502 or the STA 504 receives an urgent request for resources for low-latency traffic. …. The technical challenges is addressed by breaking up PPDUs during a transmission opportunity (TXoP) to provide transmission opportunities for preemption. Additionally, a shorter channel access time during a contention period between the broken up PPDUs is used for requesting preemption. And a preemption request (PR) frame is used.
[0110] FIG. 9 illustrates a method for preemption in WLANs…… preemption request (PR) 924, 926, frame during the time gaps between the AP 502 transmitting the DL PPDU 1 920, the DL PPDU 2 922.
[0113] The PR 924 and PR 926 may be similar to a clear-to-send (CTS) frame. The LL transmitter, STA 504, has XIFS 910 and XIFS 912, which may be termed preemption windows, to transmit the PR 924 and/or PR 926
[0123] FIG. 10 illustrates a PPDU 1000, in accordance with some embodiments. The DL PPDU 1 920, DL PPDU 2 922, and DL PPDU N 927 may be termed an aggregated PPDUs set of one or more PPDUs that have been broken up into smaller PPDUs. For example, in FIG. 10, PPDU 1000 is broken up into PPDU, DL PPDU 1 920, DL PPDU 2 922, and DL PPDU N 927. Each of DL PPDU 1 920, DL PPDU 2 922, and DL PPDU N 927 may be termed a PPDU component or aggregated PPDUs.
[0134] If the STA 504 wants to have the possibility to send PR 924, 926 if an urgent packet appears in its transmit queue during the Aggregated PPDUs set, it may go to doze state, but needs to keep some level of time synchronization so that it knows when to wake up and send a PR 924, 926 at the right time and with the right timing accuracy to the TxOP holder.
[0135] In some embodiments, the STA 504 stays in a doze state until an urgent packet appears in its queue (if any), once it appears, it can wake up at the next Preemption Window, xIFS 910, 912, to transmit the PR 924, 926.
(Construed urgent packet == a packet with higher priority value than packets in PPDU 1000)); and
dynamically configuring, by an access point (AP), the preemption opportunity (PO) (
[0110] FIG. 9 illustrates a method for preemption in WLANs, in accordance with some embodiments. One or more LL transmitters such as STA 504 can send a preemption request (PR) 924, 926, frame during the time gaps between the AP 502 transmitting the DL PPDU 1 920, the DL PPDU 2 922, and the DL PPDU N 927. Each of the DL PPDU 1 920, DL PPDU 2 922, DL PPDU N 927 may be PPDU 1000. The DL PPDU 1 920, DL PPDU 2 922, DL PPDU N 927 may have been a larger PPDU that was broken up to shorten the TXOP 925. The DL PPDU 1 920, DL PPDU 2 922, DL PPDU N 927 may have different formats. For example, the first PPDU, DL PPDU 1 920 may have a different format that includes, for example, an element that provides information regarding the number of PPDUs or time gaps for the TXOP 925. The AP 502 senses the wireless medium at 902 before transmitting the RTS 904.
[0111] The AP 502 may transmit a request-to-send (RTS) 904 frame to acquire the TxOP 925 with the STA 504 responding with a clear-to-send (CTS) 916. The AP 502 may acquire the TxOP 925 in a different manner. The interframe duration may be a short interframe space (SIFS) 906 after the RTS 904 frame and a SIFS 908 after the CTS 916.
[0112] The STA 504 or requester can preempt during the time gap Tg (T sub g), which, as illustrated, are shorter-interframe space (XIFS) 910 and XIFS 912 in FIG. 9. The time gap (T sub g) is an interframe space, which is illustrated as XIFS. XIFS is an example embodiment
Fig. 10, [0124] Between the aggregated or component PPDUs is preemption window such as xIFS gap, xIFS 910, 912. In some examples, the first PPDU component of an aggregated PPDU, such as DL PPDU 1 920 includes information regarding the structure of the TxOP 925 such as structure information 1002. In some examples, the PHY preamble of the first PPDU component of an Aggregated PPDUs set announces the structure of the Aggregated PPDUs set 1006 by including one or more of the following in the structure information 1002.
[0125] Length of each PPDU, number of PPDU components in the Aggregated PPDUs set 1006. Receiving STAs 504 can decode the PHY preamble, structure information 1002, of the first PPDU, DL PPDU 1 920, to determine the different preemption windows, xIFS 910, 912, during which they can send a PR 924, 926 signal or frame if they are eligible for it and want to preempt the Aggregated PPDUs set 1006.
), wherein the PO comprises a plurality of parameters including at least one of the following:
one or more sub-windows (
See [0110-125] cited above, disclosing the different preemption windows, xIFS 910, 912, during which they can send a PR 924, 926 signal or frame);
one or more bands;
one or more timeslots defined by respective intersections of the one or more sub-windows and the one or more bands; or
one or more inter-frame spaces (IFSs) between at least two of the one or more sub-windows (
Fig. 9, SIFS after PR 924 in XIFS 910 before XIFS 912,
See [0115] The AP 502 may send a frame that indicates whichever STA 504 transmitted the PR 924 is transmit its LL traffic such as after a SIFS duration.).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted mutatis mutandis of claim 1 and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 1,wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to perform:
determining, based on receiving one or more notifications about event-triggered traffic (
[0114] The LL packet transmission may be initiated by the AP after the reception of the common PR.
(PR is construed as notification about event-triggered traffic)),
such as buffer status reports (BSRs), in a sub-window of a PO, that a threshold quantity of transmissions is available to be scheduled in a transmission period; and terminating, based on the threshold being met or exceeded, the PO (
[0114] The LL packet transmission may be initiated by the AP after the reception of the common PR. For example, the AP 502 may trigger the LL STAs, STA 504, to send LL packets. The AP 502 may know which STA 504 associated with the AP 502 are LL transmitters and may send a trigger frame for the LL transmitters to transmit to the AP 502 if the AP 502 receives a PR 924.
[0115] For example, the AP 502 after receiving the PR 924, may rather than transmitting the DL PPDU 2 922 may send a trigger frame to cause one or more of the STAs 504 to transmit UL traffic or frames such as LL traffic. In some examples, the AP 502 can discern which STAs 504 sent a PR 924 and the AP 502 sends a trigger frame to only those STAs 504.
(PR is construed as notification, or a BSR, about event-triggered traffic of LL packets, and XIFS 910 terminated after PR 924 transmission starts).
Regarding claim 3, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to perform:
structuring, based on at least one of a number, type, or amount of traffic buffered by stations (STAs) or based on an estimated quantity of event-based frames eligible for TXOP preemption, the PO via an initial actions (IA) frame at a beginning of the PO (
[0125] Length of each PPDU, number of PPDU components in the Aggregated PPDUs set 1006. Receiving STAs 504 can decode the PHY preamble, structure information 1002, of the first PPDU, DL PPDU 1 920, to determine the different preemption windows, xIFS 910, 912, during which they can send a PR 924, 926 signal or frame if they are eligible for it and want to preempt the Aggregated PPDUs set 1006.).
Regarding claim 5, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to perform:
transmitting, based on a second threshold quantity of notifications about event-triggered traffic, such as buffer status report (BSR) frames, being received, a trigger frame (TF) prior to an end of the sub-window (
[0115] For example, the AP 502 after receiving the PR 924, may rather than transmitting the DL PPDU 2 922 may send a trigger frame to cause one or more of the STAs 504 to transmit UL traffic or frames such as LL traffic.).
Regarding claim 6, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to perform:
terminating the PO early such that the terminating occurs within at least one of a plurality of inter-sub-window periods (
See Fig. 9, PR 924, PR 926 corresponding to XIFS 910, XIFS 912 respectively).
Regarding claim 7, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the plurality of inter-sub-window periods is comprised of at least one of the following:
short inter-frame space (SIFS) (See Fig. 9 SIFS and XIFS );
point coordination function (PCF) inter-frame space (PIFS); or
distributed coordination function (DCF) inter-frame space (DIFS).
Regarding claim 8, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to perform:
determining whether the threshold is met or exceeded based on at least one of a maximum transmission period allowed by a transmission opportunity (TXOP) holder or another type of restriction enforced by the AP or other entities (
Fig. 10, [0124] the first PPDU component of an aggregated PPDU, such as DL PPDU 1 920 includes information regarding the structure of the TxOP 925 such as structure information 1002. In some examples, the PHY preamble of the first PPDU component of an Aggregated PPDUs set announces the structure of the Aggregated PPDUs set 1006 by including one or more of the following in the structure information 1002.).
Regarding claim 9, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to perform:
configuring at least one of the following:
a quantity of sub-windows (See [0110-125] cited above, disclosing the different preemption windows, xIFS 910, 912, during which they can send a PR 924, 926 signal or frame.
[0124] the first PPDU component of an aggregated PPDU, such as DL PPDU 1 920 includes information regarding the structure of the TxOP 925 …);
a quantity of bands; or
a quantity of timeslots per sub-window.
Regarding claim 13, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to perform:
configuring, based on the AP not transmitting a TF prior to an end of a current sub- window, at least one of the one or more STAs assigned to a next sub-window subsequent to the current sub-window to use any remaining time of the current sub-window as timeslots for channel access (
See Fig. 9, [0115] For example, the AP 502 after receiving the PR 924, may rather than transmitting the DL PPDU 2 922 may send a trigger frame to cause one or more of the STAs 504 to transmit UL traffic or frames such as LL traffic.).
.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 8.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 9.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 13.
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 of this title, 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 4, 10-11, 17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou; Laurent. (US U20240137983 A1, of IDS, hereinafter ‘CARIOU’) in view of Viger et al. (GB 2642445 A, hereinafter ‘VIGER’).
Regarding claim 4, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
CARIOU does not explicitly disclose transmitting, based on detecting one or more collisions in the sub-window, a frame informing one or more stations (STAs) about one or more new sub-windows and their corresponding structures.
In an analogous art, VIGER teaches transmitting, based on detecting one or more collisions in the sub-window, a frame informing one or more stations (STAs) about one or more new sub-windows and their corresponding structures (
Fig. 4, [0121] The Figure illustrates an existing TXOP 400 in between AP and STA1. TXOP 400 is defined as a preemptable TXOP, that is to say STAs may try to pre-empt it. AP and STA1 have a frame exchange sequence during which frame 401 is sent by AP to STA1, in response to which STA1 sends an ACK frame 402 after a SIFS period.
[0123] …. STA2 wins the pre-emption and gains channel access when its PBO counter reaches zero with the channel still idle.
[0124] In embodiments, STA2 transmits a pre-emption request frame 403 (PR frame) over the medium upon successfully contending access to the medium within the interframe period.
[0126] Optionally (as shown in dotted lines), the TXOP holder (here the AP) can acknowledge the pre-emption, so that STA2 waits for and receives, from the pre-empted TXOP holder, a preemption response frame 405 acknowledging the pre-emption request frame. This is to ensure the successful pre-emption.
[0147] The AP is therefore free to accept or not new data classes (e.g. new incoming SCS streams) in the TXOP pre-emption scheme, depending for example on the activity within its BSS.
[0148] Similarly, it is also free to adjust the pre-emption contention parameters of the TXOP pre-emption scheme depending on the activity, for example according to the (evolving) number of SCSID indexes (per STA, as new SCS streams are accepted) and the (evolving) number of STAs and/or on the load and the collision rates.
Fig. 7, [0201] The STA may not receive the pre-emption response frame 405, in particular because the PR frame 403 collided with another PR frame sent by another candidate pre-empting STA. This is illustrated in Figure 7.
[0202] STA1 and STA2 count down their PBO, and reach zero at the same time, hence send their PR frame 403 and 403' substantially at the same time. A frame collision therefore occurs. The TXOP holder detects the collision…
[0204] In this scenario, the TXOP holder considers there is no pre-empting frame, hence no TXOP pre-emption, in case frame collision is sensed during the interframe period. Frame collision is detected e.g. when the TXOP holder is unable to decode a frame. Therefore, the TXOP holder can use the TXOP again substantially a SIFS after an end of the sensed collided frames.
[0222] In this scenario, the TXOP holder obtains a transmission opportunity (TXOP) on the wireless medium and scheduling one or more frame exchange sequences, senses whether a preempting frame is transmitted by another STA during an interframe period inside the TXOP and starting from an end of a frame transmission in the frame exchange sequence, to the effect of pre-empting the TXOP, and continues using the TXOP in the continuity of the interframe period in case no pre-empting frame is sensed.
[0223] The pre-emption contention parameters used by the STAs to conduct TXOP pre-emption operations include one or more of the initializing PBO count value (in case no random drawing of the initializing value is conducted), the pre-emption contention window PCW (per STA, or per AC or the like), the length PR Size of the padding portion of the PR frame (hence defining the variable length of the PR frame), the deferment API FS (per SA, or per AC or the like) before decrementing the PBO counter. The pre-emption contention parameters may be predefined or defined at STA level.
[0224] As mentioned above, they are preferably advertised by the AP in a management frame, such as a Beacon, Probe Response or (Re)Association Response frame. Hence, they can be updated over time in new frames.
(It is obvious that AP, after detecting PR frame collision, can transmit a frame informing STAs about new/updated pre-emption contention parameters for sub-windows and their corresponding structures)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the technique of pre-emption of the wireless medium while a TXOP is on-going of VIGER to the system of preemption in WLANS of CARIOU in order to take the advantage of a method for providing dynamic control of the pre-empting beneficiaries and allowing additional transmission opportunities using pre-emption of the TXOP to be offered to some data classes, to improve network efficiency (VIGER: [0031, 0032]).
Regarding claim 10, CARIOU teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
CARIOU does not explicitly disclose not allowing STAs with event-triggered traffic having a traffic priority value below a predetermined traffic priority value to report during the PO.
VIGER teaches not allowing STAs with event-triggered traffic having a traffic priority value below a predetermined traffic priority value to report during the PO (
[0031] the TXOP holder or an access point signals which of the following stations are authorized to contend for pre-empting the TXOP: ….. one or more stations specifically identified by the TXOP holder.
[0032] the TXOP holder signals which type or types (or classes) of pre-empting traffic are authorized for transmission in case of pre-emption of the TXOP. Pre-empting traffic means …. class of data, including AC, SCS stream, and so on. The above provision allows some additional transmission opportunities to be offered to some data classes.
[0041] a pre-emption contention window value is defined per access category. In that case, multiple contentions (one per AC) may be conducted in parallel during the interframe period. This allows TXOP pre-emption to prioritize certain types of data, e.g. to facilitate low latency communications.
[0052] In embodiments, the pre-emption request frame includes a length-varying part, the length of which depends on a type of pre-empting traffic the STA intends to transmit over the pre-empted medium. This configuration allows prioritization of some data classes over other, since longer request frame can be sensed by other stations as an indication that the sending station uses the medium.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the technique of pre-emption of the wireless medium while a TXOP is on-going of VIGER to the system of preemption in WLANS of CARIOU in order to take the advantage of a method for providing dynamic control of the pre-empting beneficiaries and allowing additional transmission opportunities using pre-emption of the TXOP to be offered to some data classes, to improve network efficiency (VIGER: [0031, 0032]).
Regarding claim 11, CARIOU, in view of VIGER, teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
CARIOU does not explicitly disclose indicating which STA(s) of the one or more STAs are allowed to perform channel access in the one or more new sub-windows.
VIGER teaches which STA(s) of the one or more STAs are allowed to perform channel access in the one or more new sub-windows (
[0031] the TXOP holder or an access point signals which of the following stations are authorized to contend for pre-empting the TXOP: ….. one or more stations specifically identified by the TXOP holder.
[0123] The pre-emption contention parameters may be predefined or defined at STA level.
[0224] As mentioned above, they are preferably advertised by the AP in a management frame, such as a Beacon, Probe Response or (Re)Association Response frame. Hence, they can be updated over time in new frames.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the technique of pre-emption of the wireless medium while a TXOP is on-going of VIGER to the system of preemption in WLANS of CARIOU in order to take the advantage of a method for providing dynamic control of the pre-empting beneficiaries and allowing additional transmission opportunities using pre-emption of the TXOP to be offered to some data classes, to improve network efficiency (VIGER: [0031, 0032]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 10.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 11.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou; Laurent. (US U20240137983 A1, of IDS, hereinafter ‘CARIOU’) in view of Viger et al. (GB 2642445 A, hereinafter ‘VIGER’) and with further in view of Park et al. (WO 2025048424 A1, hereinafter ‘PARK’).
Regarding claim 12, CARIOU, in view of VIGER, teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
CARIOU and VIGER do not explicitly disclose indicating permissible bands in which at least one of the one or more STAs that used the bands in a prior sub-window is allowed to perform channel access in the one or more new sub- windows.
In an analogous art, PARK teaches indicating permissible bands in which at least one of the one or more STAs that used the bands in a prior sub-window is allowed to perform channel access in the one or more new sub- windows (
Fig. 10, [0139]
FIG. 10 is a drawing for illustrating an example of a method performed by a first STA according to the present disclosure.
[0140]
In step 1010, the first STA can receive a first PPDU containing information related to the preemption from the second STA.
For example, the first PPDU can be transmitted over the first bandwidth.
[0141]
Information related to the preemption may correspond to 1-bit information indicating whether the preemption is allowed.
For example, information related to the pre-amplification may correspond to the pre-amplification bits of the examples in FIGS. 8 and FIG. 9.
[0142]
In step 1020, the first STA may transmit a second PPDU containing a preemption request to the second STA on the second bandwidth based on the availability of a second bandwidth based on one or more of the first bandwidth, the operating bandwidth of the first STA, or a specific bandwidth.
[0178]
To prevent this, in addition to the preemption bit in the DL PPDU, when the preemption bit is 1 (i.e., preemption is allowed), the minimum bandwidth that must be guaranteed or desired to be used for transmission when transmitting PR or data (e.g., LL traffic) may be specified.
This minimum bandwidth may correspond to the aforementioned specific bandwidth.
[0179]
Specific bandwidth may also be specified through specific fields such as the PHY header.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the technique of transmitting or
receiving a preemption request in a wireless LAN system using specified band of KIM to the system of preemption in WLANS of CARIOU and VIGER in order to take the advantage of a method for preventing reducing problems such as reduced throughput or crashes (KIM: [0178]).
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yee et al. (US 20260143512 A1), describing ENHANCED CHANNEL ACCESS FOR LOW LATENCY TRANSMISSIONS
Ciochina-Kar et al. (US 20260136386 A1), describing COMMUNICATION DEVICES AND METHODS FOR TXOP TRUNCATION
Li et al. (US 20250380303 A1), describing COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION APPARATUS
Cherian et al. (US 20250234375 A1), describing ACCESS POINT (AP)-AIDED DOWNLINK TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY (TXOP) PREEMPTION BY STATIONS (STAS) WITH LOW-LATENCY UPLINK TRAFFIC
Ho et al. (US 20250132871 A1), describing PREEMPTION TECHNIQUES FOR LOW LATENCY DEVICES
Abouelseoud et al. (US 20250081091 A1), describing Preemption Of Downlink Data For Uplink Data Or Coexistence Events
Ajami et al. (US 20250063596 A1), describing LOW LATENCY CHANNEL ACCESS
Chu et al. (US 20250056595 A1), describing DIFFERENT LOW-LATENCY PREEMPTION MODES FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
Nayak et al. (US 20240340956 A1), describing PROCEDURES FOR PREEMPTION IN NEXT GENERATION WI-FI NETWORKS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAH M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8951. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM PST.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at 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 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.
/SHAH M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights