DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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)(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.
4. Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asterjadhi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0366254 (hereinafter Asterjadhi).
Regarding claim 1, Asterjadhi discloses a wireless device (disclosed is a wireless device implemented as an access point (AP), according to [0060], Fig. 3 [element 302]) comprising:
a controller configured to determine an arrangement of control information (the AP comprises a processor, according to [0061], Fig. 3 [element 304], whereby said AP determines HE (high efficiency) Control field information in MPDUs, according to [0082]); and
a wireless transceiver configured to announce the arrangement of the control information in a first frame exchange with a second wireless device in a transmit opportunity (TXOP) and to conduct a plurality of subsequent frame exchanges with the second wireless device based on the arrangement of the control information (the AP comprises a transceiver, according to [0064], Fig. 3 [element 314], whereby said AP transmits a first frame, an A-MPDU, to a STA [“second wireless device”] during a TXOP, whereby said A-MPDU comprises an HE control field that facilitates two subsequent frame exchanges between the AP and the STA during the TXOP, according to [0082], Fig. 10 [elements 1002, 1004, 1006, and 1010]).
Regarding claim 19, Asterjadhi discloses a wireless access point (AP) compatible with an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 protocol (disclosed is an IEEE 802.11 access point (AP), according to [0046], [0060], Fig. 3 [element 302]), the wireless AP comprising:
a controller configured to determine an arrangement of control information (the AP comprises a processor, according to [0061], Fig. 3 [element 304], whereby said AP determines HE (high efficiency) Control field information in MPDUs, according to [0082]); and
a wireless transceiver configured to announce the arrangement of the control information in a first frame exchange with a wireless station (STA) device in a transmit opportunity (TXOP) and to conduct a plurality of subsequent frame exchanges with the wireless STA device in the TXOP based on the arrangement of the control information (the AP comprises a transceiver, according to [0064], Fig. 3 [element 314], whereby said AP transmits a first frame, an A-MPDU, to a STA [“second wireless device”] during a TXOP, whereby said A-MPDU comprises an HE control field that facilitates two subsequent frame exchanges between the AP and the STA during the TXOP, according to [0082], Fig. 10 [elements 1002, 1004, 1006, and 1010]).
Regarding claim 20, Asterjadhi discloses a method for wireless communications (disclosed is a method for wireless communications, according to [0060]), the method comprising:
announcing a plurality of arrangements of control information in a first frame exchange between a first wireless device and a second wireless device in a transmit opportunity (TXOP), wherein each of the arrangements of the control information comprises at least one of in-device interference information, power saving information, sub-band switch information, and per TXOP responder's transmitter/receiver (Tx/Rx) parameter negotiation information for the TXOP (an AP [“first wireless device”] transmits a first frame, an A-MPDU, to a STA [“second wireless device”] during a TXOP, whereby said A-MPDU comprises an HE control field, according to [0082], Fig. 10 [elements 1002 and 1010], whereby the HE control field comprises power-save poll information [“power saving information”], according to [0085]); and
conducting a plurality of subsequent frame exchanges between the first wireless device and the second wireless device in the TXOP based on the arrangements of the control information (the HE control field in the A-MPDU that is transmitted from the AP to the STA facilitates two subsequent frame exchanges between the AP and the STA during the TXOP, according to [0082], Fig. 10 [elements 1002, 1004, 1006, and 1010]).
Regarding claim 2, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the arrangement of the control information comprises at least one of in-device interference information, power saving information, sub-band switch information, and per TXOP responder's transmitter/receiver (Tx/Rx) parameter negotiation information for the TXOP (the HE control field comprises power-save poll information [“power saving information”], according to [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 4, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to generate an initiating control frame that comprises the arrangement of the control information (the AP generates and transmits an A-MPDU, that comprises an HE control field, that is the first frame of the TXOP, according to [0082], Fig. 10 [elements 1002 and 1010]).
Regarding claim 5, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the arrangement of the control information comprises a control information triple, and wherein the control information triple comprises type information, length information, and content information (the content, type, and length of the information in a control information field depends on the value of the control ID field or of a length field that is added to the HE control field, according to [0079], Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the arrangement of the control information comprises a control information pair, and wherein the control information pair comprises type information and content information (the content and type of the information in a control information field depends on the value of the control ID field or of a length field that is added to the HE control field, according to [0079], Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to:
receive a second arrangement of the control information from the second wireless device in the first frame exchange with the second wireless device in the TXOP (the AP receives from the STA, during the TXOP, an A-MPDU that comprises an HE control field, according to [0082], Fig. 10 [elements 1004 and 1010]); and
conduct the subsequent frame exchanges with the second wireless device in the TXOP based on the arrangement of the control information and the second arrangement of the control information (the subsequent frame exchanges are conducted based on the HE control field information, according to [0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 7, wherein the controller is further configured to generate an initiating control frame that contains the arrangement of the control information, and wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to receive, from the second wireless device, a responding control frame that contains the second arrangement of the control information (the AP generates an A-MPDU, that comprises an HE control field, that is the first frame of the TXOP, whereupon said AP receives from the STA, during the TXOP, an A-MPDU that comprises an HE control field, according to [0082], Fig. 10 [elements 1002, 1004, and 1010]).
Regarding claim 9, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the initiating control frame comprises a Buffer Status Report Poll (BSRP) trigger frame, and wherein the responding control frame comprises a multi-station (multi-STA) block acknowledgement (BA) frame (the HE control field comprises a buffer status request, according to [0090], Fig. 8B [element 863], whereby a multi-STA block acknowledgement (BA) frame is sent as a response by the STA, according to [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 9, wherein the Multi-STA BA frame does not carry a BA bitmap for acknowledging an Aggregate MAC Protocol Data Unit (A-MPDU) (a multi-STA BA frame for acknowledging an A-MPDU may have a BA bitmap field that is 0 bytes in length, according to [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 12, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 9, wherein the Multi-STA BA frame comprises a Per Association ID (AID) Traffic Identifier (TID) information (Info) field for all addressed or associated stations (STAs) (the per-STA information subfield of the multi-STA BA frame comprises a per-AID TID information field, according to [0114]).
Regarding claim 15, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the initiating control frame comprises a Buffer Status Report Poll (BSRP) trigger frame, wherein the responding control frame comprises a quality of service (QOS) null frame, and wherein a TXOP holder of the TXOP does not send feedback information (the HE control field comprises a buffer status request, whereby the BS (buffer status) response frame from the STA comprises a QoS Null frame, according to [0090], Fig. 8B [element 863], whereby the channel/MCS feedback field may have no information, according to [0083]).
Regarding claim 16, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to transmit the initiating control frame to the second wireless device (the AP transmits the A-MPDU to the STA, according to [0082], Fig. 10 [element 1002]).
Regarding claim 17, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the initiating control frame comprises a special User information (Info) field for all addressed or associated stations (STAs) (the control information field comprises a multi-user (MU)/coding field, according to [0083]).
Regarding claim 18, Asterjadhi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the wireless device comprises a mobile wireless access point (AP) or a wireless non-AP station (STA) (the wireless device is an AP, according to [0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Chun et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0310424 (hereinafter Chun).
Regarding claim 13, Asterjadhi discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Asterjadhi does not expressly disclose that the initiating control frame comprises a block acknowledgement response (BAR) frame, and wherein the responding control frame comprises a block acknowledgement (BA) frame.
Chun discloses that the initiating control frame comprises a block acknowledgement response (BAR) frame, and wherein the responding control frame comprises a block acknowledgement (BA) frame (an AP transmits a BAR to a STA, and said STA transmits a BA to said AP, according to [0410]-[0411]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asterjadhi with Chun such that the initiating control frame comprises a block acknowledgement response (BAR) frame, and wherein the responding control frame comprises a block acknowledgement (BA) frame.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve system performance in an environment that in which there is a dense presence of APs and STAs (Chun: [0006]-[0008]).
9. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Xia et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0410149 (hereinafter Xia).
Regarding claim 14, Asterjadhi discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Asterjadhi does not expressly disclose that the initiating control frame comprises a multi-user-request to send (MU-RTS) frame, wherein the responding control frame comprises a clear to send (CTS) frame, and wherein a TXOP holder of the TXOP does not send feedback information.
Xia discloses that the initiating control frame comprises a multi-user-request to send (MU-RTS) frame, wherein the responding control frame comprises a clear to send (CTS) frame, and wherein a TXOP holder of the TXOP does not send feedback information (an MU-RTS frame is transmitted by a non-AP STA, and in response, a CTS frame is sent to said non-AP STA, according to [0140], [0153], whereby a non-AP STA doesn’t receive any feedback information from the associated AP before the TXOP holder STA configuration frame time out, according to [0251]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asterjadhi with Xia such that the initiating control frame comprises a multi-user-request to send (MU-RTS) frame, wherein the responding control frame comprises a clear to send (CTS) frame, and wherein a TXOP holder of the TXOP does not send feedback information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce latency for STAs and APs (Xia: [0096]-[0097]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 10 is 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
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights