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 Objections
Claim 1, 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites limitation “the first other communication” in lines 16-17. It seems to be “the first other communication device” instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 and 10 are objected for the same reason stated above.
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.
Claims 1, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2022/0353910 A1), in view of Kneckt et al (US 2022/0086910 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 10, Lu teaches a communication device that operates in a role of establishing a wireless network, comprising:
at least one storage medium; at least one processor that executes instructions stored in the at least one storage medium, at least one circuit, or a combination of the at least one processor and the circuit (Fig. 5, processor and memory), to cause the communication device to perform:
transmitting a Trigger frame that allows at least one of other communication devices participating in the wireless network to share a first period and communicate, the Trigger frame being compliant with an IEEE 802.11 series standard, the first period being at least a portion of a Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) acquired by the communication device ([0024], “The AP may signal the allocated time in a MU-RTS TXS trigger frame”, [0025], “the non-AP STA may transmit one or more non-TB PPDUs within the time allocation … the associated AP may continue to share the TXOP to other STAs or perform frame exchanges within the obtained TXOP”, it’s noted that MU-RTS TXs trigger frame is compliant with the IEEE 802.11be series standard); and
confirming, by transmitting a confirmation frame, whether or not a first other communication device is ready for communication during the first period ([0024, “In a first option (Option-1), the duration field of the clear-to-send (CTS) frame in response to the MU-RTS TXS trigger frame may contain the value indicating the allocation time required by the STA. For instance, a value of 0 or a predefined non-zero value may indicate rejection of the allocated time by the STA. Alternatively, or additionally, a value greater than 0 and less than or equal to the allocated time carried in the MU-RTS TXS trigger frame may indicate the required allocation time (as required by the STA and being negotiated with the AP)”),
Lu doesn’t explicitly teach that confirming, by transmitting a confirmation frame, whether or not a first other communication device is ready for communication during the first period, the first other communication being included in the other communication devices that participate in the wireless network and being not allowed to share the first period by the transmitted Trigger frame, wherein in a case where it is confirmed that the first other communication device is not ready for communication during the first period, a frame is not transmitted to the first other communication device during the first period.
Kneckt teaches confirming, by transmitting a confirmation frame, whether or not a first other communication device is ready for communication during the first period, the first other communication being included in the other communication devices that participate in the wireless network and being not allowed to share the first period by the transmitted Trigger frame, wherein in a case where it is confirmed that the first other communication device is not ready for communication during the first period, a frame is not transmitted to the first other communication device during the first period (Fig. 15, [0115], [0116], it states that the access point may use a TXOP to transmit to the (SST) station if that station responds to the MU-RTS frame with an MU-CTS frame – an express readiness gate on the AP’s transmission to that station within the TXOP; (ii)in the discussion of Figs. 16-17, [0116], wherein a solicited station (STA 1) does not response to the MU-RTS, the access point sends PPDUs/DL data only to the station from which it received and MU-CTS frame (e.g., DLL data to STA 3 and SST STA 2), such that no frame is transmitted to the non-responding station during the TXOP (alternatively the AP cancels the TXOP with a CF-end frame); and (iii) throughout the method follows (Fig.2, 4 and 7, e.g., frame 426, frame 772), the AP provides the frame addressed to the station “based at least in part on the CTS” received in the MU-CTS frame. Thus, Kneckt discloses that a station that confirms, by transmitting a confirmation frame (MU-RTS), whether a station is ready for communication during a period within the AP’s TXOP, and that refrains from transmitting a frame to a station whose readiness is not confirmed during that period).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the triggered TXOP sharing of Lu such that the AP, during the shared first period, confirms – by transmitting a confirmation frame (MU-RTS/RTS) as taught by Kneckt, - whether an associated STA that was not designated in the MU-RTS TXS trigger frame is ready for communication, and refrains from transmitting a frame to that STA when it is not ready, transmitting instead to STAs that responded. The combination would improve transmission efficiency by avoiding wasted transmissions and collisions during the TXOP period.
Regarding Claims 7, 9, 11, Lu teaches a communication device comprising:
at least one storage medium; at least one processor that executes instructions stored in the at least one storage medium, at least one circuit, or a combination of the at least one processor and the circuit (Fig. 5, processor and memory), to cause the communication device to perform:
receiving a Trigger frame that allows at least one of communication devices participating in a wireless network to share a first period and communicate, the first period being at least a portion of a Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) acquired by another communication device playing a role of establishing the wireless network, the Trigger frame being compliant with an IEEE 802.11 series standard ([0024], “The AP may signal the allocated time in a MU-RTS TXS trigger frame”, [0025], “the non-AP STA may transmit one or more non-TB PPDUs within the time allocation … the associated AP may continue to share the TXOP to other STAs or perform frame exchanges within the obtained TXOP”, it’s noted that MU-RTS TXs trigger frame is compliant with the IEEE 802.11be series standard); and
Lu doesn’t explicitly teach that transmitting, in a case where the communication device is not allowed to share the first period by the received Trigger frame, a response frame for a confirmation frame, which is transmitted from the other communication device, to the other communication device.
Kneckt teaches that transmitting, in a case where the communication device is not allowed to share the first period by the received Trigger frame, a response frame for a confirmation frame, which is transmitted from the other communication device, to the other communication device (Fig. 15, [0115], [0116], it states that the access point may use a TXOP to transmit to the (SST) station if that station responds to the MU-RTS frame with an MU-CTS frame – an express readiness gate on the AP’s transmission to that station within the TXOP; (ii)in the discussion of Figs. 16-17, [0116], wherein a solicited station (STA 1) does not response to the MU-RTS, the access point sends PPDUs/DL data only to the station from which it received and MU-CTS frame (e.g., DLL data to STA 3 and SST STA 2), such that no frame is transmitted to the non-responding station during the TXOP (alternatively the AP cancels the TXOP with a CF-end frame); and (iii) throughout the method follows (Fig.2, 4 and 7, e.g., frame 426, frame 772), the AP provides the frame addressed to the station “based at least in part on the CTS” received in the MU-CTS frame. Thus, Knect discloses that a station that confirms, by transmitting a confirmation frame (MU-RTS), whether a station is ready for communication during a period within the AP’s TXOP, and that refrains from transmitting a frame to a station whose readiness is not confirmed during that period).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the triggered TXOP sharing of Lu such that the AP, during the shared first period, confirms – by transmitting a confirmation frame (MU-RTS/RTS) as taught by Kneckt, - whether an associated STA that was not designated in the MU-RTS TXS trigger frame is ready for communication. The combination would improve transmission efficiency by avoiding wasted transmissions and collisions during the TXOP period.
Claim 2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2022/0353910 A1), in view of Kneckt et al (US 2022/0086910 A1), further in view of Xin et al (WO 2022/038445 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that: retransmitting the confirmation frame upon non-receipt of the response and declaring the device not ready after a predetermined number of failures.
Xin teaches the conventional CSMA/CA practice of retransmitting a frame when no response is received and, once the number of retransmissions exceed a retry limit, ceasing retransmission and treating the transmission as failed ([0082], “When retransmission is required, the STA checks the number of retransmissions which have been performed for the packet. If the number of retransmission attempts exceeds the retry limit, then the packet is dropped and no retransmission is scheduled”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply Xin's retry-limit handling to the confirmation exchange of Lu in view of Kneckt so that the AP retransmits the confirmation frame and, after a predetermined number of failed attempts, concludes the non-designated STA is not ready — a predictable use of a standard retransmission/retry-limit mechanism to reach a definite readiness determination.
Regarding Claim 6, the aforementioned references further teach that the confirmation frame is an RTS frame (Kneckt, [0116], “MU-RTS frame”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2022/0353910 A1), in view of Kneckt et al (US 2022/0086910 A1), further in view of Cervello et al (US 7,054,329 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that in a case where it is confirmed that the first other communication device is not ready for communication, the confirmation frame is transmitted to a second other communication device, which is different from the first other communication device and is not allowed to share the first period by the Trigger frame. Cervello teaches the above limitation (Col 6, lines 19-28, “If the RTS/CTS exchange is not successful, for example, assuming STA.sub.1,1 did not receive the RTS frame correctly, which could occur due to the bad channel condition or an erroneous transmission of STA.sub.2,1, then AP.sub.1 will defer the polling to STA.sub.1,1 to a future time, and will poll another STA”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Cervello in the system disclosed by Lu in view of Kneckt in order to make productive use of the remaining shared period by servicing another associated STA. Moreover, once the first STA is deemed not ready, the person of ordinary skill faced a finite number of identified, predictable options: continue retrying (bounded by the retry limit), idle for the reminder of the period, or direct for the remainder of the period, or direct the confirmation to another associated STA; selecting the latter to increase channel utilization is the product of ordinary skill and common sense; and each option yields a predictable result.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2022/0353910 A1), in view of Kneckt et al (US 2022/0086910 A1), further in view of Xin et al (WO 2022/038445 A1), further in view of Zhang et al (US 10,542,489 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that the confirmation frame is a data frame including data that the communication device transmits to the first other communication device. Zhang teaches that confirmation frame is a data frame including data that the communication device transmits to the first other communication device (Col 4, lines 5-12, “the station sends an acknowledgement (Acknowledgement, ACK) frame to the access point after receiving a data frame. Therefore, after the data frame is sent to the station, if the access point does not receive, within a preset time, an ACK frame sent by the station, the access point determines that sending the data frame to the station fails”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the confirmation frame as a data frame including data of the first other communication device, as taught by Zhang, such that a received ACK simultaneously confirms readiness and completes delivery of the payload, reducing overhead relative to a separate probe followed by a data frame – a simple substitution of one known solicit response exchange for another (RTS/CTS) yielding predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2022/0353910 A1), in view of Kneckt et al (US 2022/0086910 A1), further in view of Xin et al (WO 2022/038445 A1), further in view of Russell et al (US 9,462,485 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that the confirmation frame is a Null QoS Data frame.
Russell teaches that the confirmation is a Null QoS data frame (Col 1, lines 56-60: “transmitting a 802.11 NULL-data packet to a client wherein the traffic test is initiated at a predetermined interval; (b) receiving an 802.11 ACKnowledgement packet from the client wherein the 802.11 ACKnowledgement packet indicates that the packet was received by the client”, Col 6, line 18, “QOS NULL- packets”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to art to implement the confirmation frame as a QoS Null frame, as taught by Russell, since the Null-data/ACK exchange is a known, minimal-airtime solicit-response mechanism whose acknowledgement confirms the stations’ reachability – a simple substitution of one known solicit response exchange (Null-data/ACK) for another (RTS/CTS) yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3859. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/SIMING LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights