DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted are 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
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (IEEE 802.11-21/1115r1), in view of Ryu et al (US20240163916).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference NPL discloses a station (STA) in a wireless network, the STA comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (NPL discloses a the rTWT scheduled STAs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that STA is a station that includes a processor and a memory), the processor configured to: establish a membership for a restricted target wake time (R-TWT) schedule with an access point (AP) for a set of traffic identifiers (TIDs) (Page 4 discloses that TIDs_L denote the TIDs specified by the R-TWT setup procedure. TIDs_L{AP, STA_x} is the TID set specified by the rTWT setup procedure between AP and STA_x); transmit, to the AP, one or more frames corresponding to one or more TIDs that belong to the set of TIDs within a service period (SP) (Page 5 discloses that rTWT STA may complete transmitting TIDs_L {AP, STA} before the SP finishes…traffic in TIDs_L … to be delivered in rTWT SPs only. Page 13 discloses that rTWT scheduled STAs shall first schedule the transmission of MSDUs of TIDs_L); transmit, to the AP, an indication indicating pending traffic with a TID that does not belong to the set of TIDs (Page 5 discloses that rTWT STA may complete transmitting TIDs_L {AP, STA} before the SP finishes and it has frames of other TIDs pending at itself…stay awake to tx them. Page 8 discloses provide buffer status for other TID(s)). However, NPL does not explicitly teach receive, from the AP, an indication indicating acceptance of transmission of the pending traffic; and transmit, to the AP, one or more frames corresponding to the TID that does not belong to the set of TIDs.
In an analogous art Ryu teaches receive, from the AP, an indication indicating acceptance of transmission of the pending traffic; and transmit, to the AP, one or more frames corresponding to the TID that does not belong to the set of TIDs (¶0244 discloses that the STA that has no uplink buffered latency sensitive traffic but has uplink buffered non-latency sensitive traffic may be allowed to transmit, in response to the trigger frame, an HE TB PPDU including MSDUs or A-MSDUs with a TID different from the one or more TI Ds indicated as latency sensitive traffic in the first frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Ryu increase channel utilization and increase overall radio link throughput.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of NPL and Ryu discloses all limitations of claim 1. NPL further discloses the indication indicating the pending traffic with the TID that does not belong to the set of TIDs is included within a buffer status report (Page 5 discloses that rTWT STA may complete transmitting … it has frames of other TIDs pending at itself…stay awake to tx them. Page 8 discloses provide buffer status for other TID(s)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of NPL and Ryu discloses all limitations of claim 1. NPL and Ryu further disclose the indication indicating the pending traffic with the TID that does not belong to the set of TIDs is included within a request frame that includes a request to allow transmission of the pending traffic where:
Ryu ¶0245 discloses that an AP and a STA are allowed to transmit MSDUs or A-MSDUs with any TIDs outside the r-TWT SP. ¶0243 discloses that a STA is allowed to transmit MSDUs or A-MSDUs with a TID different from the one or more TI Ds indicated as latency sensitive traffic in the first frame. Fig. 26 discloses STA 2612 may transmit a frame 2624 to AP 2610. Frame 2624 may be a control frame, any management frame, and/or an MSDU or A-MSDU with any TID.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NPL Page 9 discloses that responding to basic trigger … in order of (permitted by allowed transmission time per UL length): Pending MSDUs for the triggered TID(s)…Pending MSDUs of TIDs not in TIDs_L, if any).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of NPL and Ryu discloses all limitations of claim 1. Ryu further discloses the indication indicating the acceptance is received from the AP within a response frame that allows transmission of the pending traffic (¶0186 discloses that the r-TWT scheduling AP may first trigger member r-TWT scheduled STAs to allow them to first deliver their QoS data frames. ¶0190 discloses that STA 1911 may be allowed to transmit in response to a received trigger frame during the triggered-enabled r-TWT SP 1935. ¶0243 further discloses that a STA is allowed to transmit MSDUs or A-MSDUs with a TID different from the one or more TI Ds indicated as latency sensitive traffic in the first frame, in response to a trigger frame received from an AP during the r-TWT SP).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of NPL and Ryu discloses all limitations of claim 1. Ryu further discloses the set of TIDs is associated with latency sensitive traffic (¶0218 discloses that AP 2310 may be a TWT scheduling AP. AP 2310 may transmit a beacon frame 2314 including a TWT element. The TWT element may indicate a r-TWT SP 2316 of a setup r-TWT. The TWT element may indicate one or more TIDs of latency sensitive traffic associated with the r-TWT).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of NPL and Ryu discloses all limitations of claim 1. Ryu further discloses the TID that does not belong to the set of TIDs is associated with latency tolerant traffic (¶0244 discloses that the STA that has no uplink buffered latency sensitivetraffic but has uplink buffered non-latency sensitive traffic may be allowed to transmit, in response to the trigger frame, an HE TB PPDU including MSDUs or A-MSDUs with a TID different from the one or more TI Ds indicated as latency sensitive traffic in the first frame).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of NPL and Ryu discloses all limitations of claim 1. Ryu further discloses the processor is further configured to receive, from the AP, a trigger frame that solicits transmission of the pending traffic; and the one or more frames corresponding to the TID that does not belong to the set of TIDs is transmitted in response to the trigger frame(¶0244 discloses that the STA that has no uplink buffered latency sensitive traffic but has uplink buffered non-latency sensitive traffic may be allowed to transmit, in response to the trigger frame, an HE TB PPDU including MSDUs or A-MSDUs with a TID different from the one or more TI Ds indicated as latency sensitive traffic in the first frame).
Regarding claim 8, the cited reference NPL discloses an access point (AP) in a wireless network, the AP comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (NPL discloses a the rTWT scheduling AP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that STA is a station that includes a processor and a memory), the processor configured to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is drawn to the AP performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is drawn to the AP performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is drawn to the AP performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to the AP performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 5. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to the AP performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to the AP performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 7. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is drawn to a computer-implemented method for communication by a station (STA) in a wireless network performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is drawn to a computer-implemented method for communication by a station (STA) in a wireless network performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is drawn to a computer-implemented method for communication by a station (STA) in a wireless network performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to a computer-implemented method for communication by a station (STA) in a wireless network performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a computer-implemented method for communication by a station (STA) in a wireless network performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 5. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to a computer-implemented method for communication by a station (STA) in a wireless network performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (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 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
