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 .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1, 3-8, 11-18, 20-23, 25-32
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 11, 18, 30
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 2, 9-10, 19, 24
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11-18, 20-23, 25-32 is/are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 9/4/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11-18, 20-23, 25-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is representative and claims “wherein the at least one other station is outside an association of the apparatus.” Associate is a broad term that is generally defined as “to join or connect together” or “to bring together or into relationship in any of various intangible ways.” (See “associate” in Merriam-Webster, available at www.merriam-webster.com/disctionary/associate). Words of a claim are given their plain meaning unless rebutted “by the applicant clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification.” See MPEP 2111.01. The specification provides no definition for the term “outside an association” or for the word “associate,” so the plain meaning controls. Under the plain meaning, Claim 1 lacks written description support for the above claim term.
Applicant points to Spec, para. 61 as support for the amendment (see Remarks, 9/4/2026, pg. 9). Para. 61 discusses Fig. 5. While para. 61 does explicitly state “In the illustrated example, XR2 is not associated with the Infra-AP,” Fig. 5 belies this statement, as it shows a direct connection between XR2 and Infra-AP. That is both a “connecting together” and a “brought into relationship.”
Examiner believes Para. 61 contains typos, and is best understood by a person of ordinary skill as actually meaning that XR1 lacks an association with Infra-AP because XR1 communicates with STA 2, and STA 2 communicates with Infra AP, see Fig. 5. In other words, XR1 enjoys only an indirect connection relationship with Infra AP. Even under this interpretation, XR1 has an association with Infra AP because of the indirect connection. Fig. 5 illustrates a system, and Infra AP and XR1 share the system. That is the devices being “brought into relationship.” Further, Infra AP has an association with XR1 because STA2 requests channel resources from the Infra AP for a P2P session with XR1, see para. 74. Similarly, the rest of Claim 1 belies the association language, because Claim 1 communicates a recommended channel to “at least one station” which is to be used “for P2P communications with at least one other station.” “Indirect connection” and “outside an association” would not be understood by a person of ordinary skill to mean the same thing.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11-18, 20-23, 25-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 communicates a recommended channel to “at least one station” which is to be used “for P2P communications with at least one other station” and then commands “wherein the at least one other station is outside an association of the apparatus.” The claim language conflicts with itself. To the extent Applicant might assert that there is no indefiniteness because association has some other meaning rather than the plain meaning, that hypothetical meaning is indefinite because the specification never defines the terms “associate” or “outside an association.” The meaning of every claim term should be apparent, and when terms are used contrary to their ordinary meanings it must be clearly redefined in the specification. Until the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 112b is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a)(I) and (III).
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-8, 11, 13-15, 16-18, 20-23, 26-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri (US Pub. 2011/0228666) in view of Asterjadhi (US Pub. 2021/0007168) in view of Patil (US Pub. 2019/0141631) and further in view of Seok (US Pub. 2020/0120603).
With respect to Claim 1, Barbieri teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at an access point (AP), comprising: one or more memories comprising instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: (para. 110; processor and memory for a base station. Para. 24; base station may also be referred to as an access point.)
receive, while communicating with at least one station on a first set of channels, (Fig. 1, paras. 24-28; UE, which is a mobile station, communicates with base stations such as Node Bs of WAN. The UE is a station and the Node B is an apparatus.)
information regarding a second set of channels not currently being used by the apparatus; (paras. 30-32; WAN may be on a licensed frequency band. Paras. 33-34; unused bands such as TV white space may be used to support P2P communication. Therefore, they are not currently used by the apparatus. para. 44, 50-51; UE can sense unlicensed channels to see if they are open for use.)
wherein the apparatus operates only on the first set of channels, and (paras. 28-34; WAN communication refers to communication between a UE and a base station. WAN may operate only on one or more frequency channels that are licensed to a network operator. If P2P communication shares the same licensed spectrum used for WAN communication, the effectiveness and capacity of the WAN may be degraded. P2P is supported on any unlicensed band. Para. 46; base stations may have sensing capabilities even if they may not transmit on unlicensed channels. Examiner asserts this anticipates, but to the extent it does not it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to manage channels outside of the channels the base station operates on in order to provide for establishment and maintenance of P2P operation while maintaining the capacity of the base station network (Barbieri, paras. 43, 34).)
wherein the first set of channels is associated with infrastructure communications (Fig. 1, paras. 24-30; WAN communication between a UE and a base station operates on one or more licensed frequency channels. Para. 33; WAN may use some unlicensed spectrum. Paras. 36-39; tv communication on unlicensed channels in particular locations or with particular sensings.)
and the second set of channels is associated with non-infrastructure communications, including peer-to-peer (P2P) communications; (Fig. 1, paras. 30-35; P2P communications over unlicensed bands. Paras. 36-39; P2P on unlicensed channel with no primary or secondary users.)
transmit, an off-channel indication to the at least one station that identifies one or more of the second set of channels that are recommended to the at least one station for P2P communications with at least one other station, (para. 33; unlicensed users can transmit when no primary users are transmitting. Para. 40; UE detects if any primary and/or secondary users are using a channel. Therefore, the statement that nobody is using a channel is a recommendation to use the channel. para. 50-52; UEs report sensing results to the station. Station determines that P2P communication can take place between UEs and provides the channel to them for them to engage in P2P.)
wherein the at least one other station is outside an association of the apparatus; (Fig. 1, paras. 28-29; P2P communication is direct communication between UEs. UE 120e does not communicate with base station 110c and only engages in P2P communication with 120f. Para. 46; base stations may have sensing capabilities even if they may not transmit on unlicensed channels, therefore base station can still measure interference on channels without relying on UEs reporting sensing results.)
receive, from the at least one station, a request (para. 48; UE may request a certain channel or other resources. Para. 54; handover to other channels. Scheduling was previously taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to request a modification of the scheduling in order to adapt to changing communication needs.)
But Barbieri does not explicitly teach a service period availability.
Asterjadhi, however, does teach transmit, a service period availability indication to the at least one station that indicates when the at least one station is permitted to use the one or more of the second set of channels that are recommended to the at least one station for P2P communications, (Barbieri previously taught transmitting an indication of a channel to use, see above, especially at para. 52, but did not teach an indication of timing (“when”). For when, see Asterjadhi, para. 138; system may negotiate target wake time service periods which schedules particular links for particular times. Para. 166-167; system sends a target switch time of a link state.)
wherein the service period availability indication comprises a start time, a service period duration, (paras. 21-23, 165-167; start or end time of a link. Para. 152; duration field.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Barbieri with the service period availability in order to schedule communications to avoid interference.
But modified Barbieri does not explicitly teach a persistence field.
Patil, however, does teach periodicity, (paras. 35, 98; periodicity.)
and a persistence field that indicates a duration for which the permission to use the one or more of the second set of channels by the at least one station remains valid. (para. 74; lifetime information, persistence information. Para. 91-93; persistence subfield.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the persistence field in order to communicate a guaranteed validity of the TWT schedule. (Patil, para. 91)
But modified Barbieri does not explicitly teach suspending or terminating a schedule.
Seok, however, does teach to suspend or terminate an off-channel schedule based on the service period availability indication; (Examiner notes that Patil may suggest this limitation by itself, see Patil, paras. 57-59; STA may subscribe to a particular TWT schedule. Para. 61, 97; AP may suspend, modify or suggest alternate TWT schedules. This suggests that the STA can unsubscribe from a TWT to move to another TWT schedule, which would be a request to terminate or suspend the first schedule. Regardless, Examiner cites Seok, paras. 69-70; device terminates a service period.)
and communicate independent of the off-channel schedule in response to the request. (para. 70; device communicates the termination of the service period in the second band by communicating in the first band.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the termination of a service period in order to allow for negotiation according to automatic power saving.
With respect to Claim 3, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Barbieri also teaches wherein: the information regarding the second set of channels comprises channel loading information for the second set of channels; (para. 40; UE detects if any primary and/or secondary users are using a channel, which is loading information.)
and the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to select the one or more of the second set of channels to be recommended in the off-channel indication based on the channel loading information. (para. 49; system determines an unlicensed channel is available based upon if no primary users are transmitting on the unlicensed channel.)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 3, and Barbieri also teaches wherein the channel loading information is received via an auxiliary radio separate from a radio used for communicating with the at least one station on the first set of channels. (para. 63; UE may have multiple transceivers, one of which is used for communicating with the base station and the other of which is used for the unlicensed channel. Examiner asserts that the statement is anticipatory of the claim language, but in the event it is not, Examiner finds the claim obvious because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to use an auxiliary radio in order to maintain communication with the station while other channels are sensed, see Barbieri, para. 63.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 3, and Barbieri also teaches wherein the channel loading information is received from at least one of: one or more stations; or one or more other apparatuses. (para. 39; centralized database may store unlicensed channels available based on geographic location. UE or base station may access the geolocation database to find unlicensed channels available.)
With respect to Claim 6, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the off-channel indication is transmitted in an information element (IE) via at least one of a broadcast frame or a unicast frame. (Fig. 13, paras. 181-184; frame for multi-link communication includes information elements. para. 104, 115; signaling of an auxiliary link may be done by broadcast messaging. Paras. 102, 125, 143; request/response frames that are individually addressed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Barbieri with the information element in order to provide a standardized mechanism for providing link information and capabilities. (Asterjadhi, paras. 110, 183-184)
With respect to Claim 7, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 6, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the IE includes one or more fields that collectively specify at least one of a channel frequency or bandwidth for each of the second set of channels. (para. 19; second link has parameters including bandwidth, frequency band.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 6 applies.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 6, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein at least one of: the broadcast frame comprises a beacon frame or a probe response frame; (para. 3, 115; periodic broadcasting of beacon frames)
or the unicast frame comprises a response frame sent in response to a request for the off-channel indication. (Paras. 102, 125, 143; request/response frames that are individually addressed.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 6 applies.
With respect to Claim 11, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, from the at least one station, an indication that the at least one station is capable of participating in P2P communications during the off-channel schedule; (para. 105, 131, 168; system confirms a device supports the communication features. See also Barbieri, para. 51; system only selects P2P communication when devices are capable of performing it.)
and transmit the off-channel indication and service period availability indication after receiving the indication. (para. 138; scheduling and signaling a target wake time)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies.
With respect to Claim 13, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein transmitting, the service period availability indication comprises transmitting the service period availability indication via at least one of: a target wakeup time (TWT) element, a parameter set, or an information element. (para. 138; scheduling and signaling a target wake time)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies.
With respect to Claim 14, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, from the at least one station, a request frame, wherein the service period availability indication is transmitted in an information element (IE) via a response to the request frame. (Paras. 102, 125, 143; request/response frames that are individually addressed. para. 138; system may negotiate target wake time service periods which schedules particular links for particular times. Fig. 13, paras. 181-184; frame for multi-link communication includes information elements.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies.
With respect to Claim 15, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 14, and Seok also teaches wherein the request frame indicates one or more operating classes that the at least one station supports. (para. 49-50; 5GHz transceiver and 2.4 GHz transceiver. Para. 67; band information includes operating class.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies.
With respect to Claim 16, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 14, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the response indicates additional information related to operation on the one or more second set of channels. (Fig. 13, paras. 181-184; frame for multi-link communication includes information elements with additional information such as warm up time.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies.
With respect to Claim 17, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to select non-overlapping service period allocations for different stations. (para. 138; scheduling may be not aligned. See also Barbieri, para. 40, 43, 50; channel selection is based on no users using the channel or upon amount of interference. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to select non-overlapping service periods for different stations to avoid interference with other stations’ communications.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies.
With respect to Claim 18, Barbieri teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: (para. 109; processor and memory)
obtain, while communicating with at least one access point (AP) on a first set of channels, (Fig. 1, paras. 24-28; UE, which is a mobile station, communicates with base stations such as Node Bs of WAN. The UE is a station and the Node B is an access point.)
an off-channel indication that identifies a second set of one or more channels not currently being used by the APP&S Ref. No. QUAL/2201895USQUALCOMM Ref. No.: 220189540 (paras. 30-32; WAN may be on a licensed frequency band. Paras. 33-34; unused bands such as TV white space may be used to support P2P communication. Therefore, they are not currently used by the apparatus. para. 44, 50-51; UE can sense unlicensed channels to see if they are open for use.)
that are recommended to the apparatus for peer-to-peer (P2P) communications with at least one other apparatus; (Paras. 39, 43-46, 50-52; base station provides UEs with an unlicensed and unused channel for P2P communication. para. 49; system determines an unlicensed channel is available based upon if no primary users are transmitting on the unlicensed channel. See also para. 33; unlicensed users can transmit when no primary users are transmitting. Para. 40; UE detects if any primary and/or secondary users are using a channel. Therefore, the statement that nobody is using a channel is a recommendation to use the channel.)
wherein the AP operates only on the first set of channels, (paras. 28-34; WAN communication refers to communication between a UE and a base station. WAN may operate only on one or more frequency channels that are licensed to a network operator. If P2P communication shares the same licensed spectrum used for WAN communication, the effectiveness and capacity of the WAN may be degraded. P2P is supported on any unlicensed band. Para. 46; base stations may have sensing capabilities even if they may not transmit on unlicensed channels. Examiner asserts this anticipates, but to the extent it does not it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to manage channels outside of the channels the base station operates on in order to provide for establishment and maintenance of P2P operation while maintaining the capacity of the base station network (Barbieri, paras. 43, 34).)
wherein the at least one other apparatus is outside an association of the AP; (Fig. 1, paras. 28-29; P2P communication is direct communication between UEs. UE 120e does not communicate with base station 110c and only engages in P2P communication with 120f. Para. 46; base stations may have sensing capabilities even if they may not transmit on unlicensed channels, therefore base station can still measure interference on channels without relying on UEs reporting sensing results.)
and participate in P2P communications with the at least one other apparatus on the one or more of the second set of channels (para. 52; UEs establish P2P communication using assigned channel.)
output, for transmission to the AP, a request (para. 48; UE may request a certain channel or other resources. Para. 54; handover to other channels. Scheduling was previously taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to request a modification of the scheduling in order to adapt to changing communication needs.)
But Barbieri does not explicitly teach a service period availability.
Asterjadhi, however, does teach obtain, from the AP, a service period availability indication that indicates when the apparatus is permitted to use the one or more of the second set of channels that are recommended to the apparatus for P2P communications, and (Barbieri previously taught outputting an indication of a channel to use, see above, especially at para. 52, but did not teach an indication of timing (“when”). For when, see Asterjadhi, para. 138; system may negotiate target wake time service periods which schedules particular links for particular times. Para. 166-167; system sends a target switch time of a link state.)
wherein the service period availability indication comprises a start time, a service period duration, (paras. 21-23, 165-167; start or end time of a link. Para. 152; duration field.)
in accordance with the service period availability indication; (para. 138; system may negotiate target wake time service periods which schedules particular links for particular times.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Barbieri with the service period availability in order to schedule communications to avoid interference.
But modified Barbieri does not explicitly teach a persistence field.
Patil, however, does teach periodicity, (paras. 35, 98; periodicity.)
and a persistence field that indicates a duration for which the permission to use the one or more of the second set of channels by the apparatus remains valid; (para. 74; lifetime information, persistence information. Para. 91-93; persistence subfield.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the persistence field in order to communicate a guaranteed validity of the TWT schedule. (Patil, para. 91)
But modified Barbieri does not explicitly teach suspending or terminating a schedule.
Seok, however, does teach to suspend or terminate an off-channel schedule based on the service period availability indication; (Examiner notes that Patil may suggest this limitation by itself, see Patil, paras. 57-59; STA may subscribe to a particular TWT schedule. Para. 61, 97; AP may suspend, modify or suggest alternate TWT schedules. This suggests that the STA can unsubscribe from a TWT to move to another TWT schedule, which would be a request to terminate or suspend the first schedule. Regardless, Examiner cites Seok, paras. 69-70; device terminates a service period.)
and communicate independent of the off-channel schedule in response to the request. (para. 70; device communicates the termination of the service period in the second band by communicating in the first band.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the termination of a service period in order to allow for negotiation according to automatic power saving.
With respect to Claim 20, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 18, and Barbieri also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to output, for transmission to the AP, channel loading information for selecting the one or more of the second set of one or more channels. (para. 40; UE detects if any primary and/or secondary users are using a channel, which is loading information.)
With respect to Claim 21, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 18, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein obtaining the off-channel indication comprises obtaining the off-channel indication from the AP in an information element (IE) via at least one of a broadcast frame or a unicast frame. (Fig. 13, paras. 181-184; frame for multi-link communication includes information elements. para. 104, 115; signaling of an auxiliary link may be done by broadcast messaging. Paras. 102, 125, 143; request/response frames that are individually addressed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Barbieri with the information element in order to provide a standardized mechanism for providing link information and capabilities. (Asterjadhi, paras. 110, 183-184)
With respect to Claim 22, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 21, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the IE includes one or more fields that collectively specify at least one of a channel frequency or bandwidth for each of the one or more of the second set of channels. (para. 19; second link has parameters including bandwidth, frequency band.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 21 applies.
With respect to Claim 23, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 21, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein at least one of: the broadcast frame comprises at least one of a beacon frame or a probe response frame; (para. 3, 115; periodic broadcasting of beacon frames)
or the unicast frame comprises a response frame sent in response to a request for the off-channel indication. (Paras. 102, 125, 143; request/response frames that are individually addressed.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 21 applies.
With respect to Claim 26, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 18, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein obtaining the service period availability indication comprises obtaining the service period availability indication, from the AP, in an information element (IE) via a unicast frame. (Fig. 13, paras. 181-184; frame for multi-link communication includes information elements. Paras. 102, 125, 143; request/response frames that are individually addressed.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 18 applies.
With respect to Claim 27, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 26, and Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: output, for transmission to the AP, a request frame, wherein the unicast frame comprises a response to the request frame that also includes the off-channel indication. (Paras. 102, 125, 143; request/response frames that are individually addressed.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 18 applies.
With respect to Claim 29, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 15, and Barbieri also teaches further comprising at least one transceiver configured to receive the off-channel indication, (Fig. 10, paras. 112-115; base station has a plurality of antennas that transmit and receive data, which are transceivers. See also para. 63; UE with single or multiple transceivers.)
And Asterjadhi also teaches wherein the apparatus is configured as a wireless station. (para. 39; non-AP multi-link device for wireless communication. Application of a known technique to similar elements for predictable results and benefits is obvious, see MPEP 2143(I)(C) and (D).)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies.
With respect to Claim 30, Barbieri teaches an access point (AP), comprising: (Fig. 1, paras. 24-28; UE, which is a mobile station, communicates with base stations such as Node Bs of WAN. The UE is a station and the Node B is an access point.)
at least one transceiver; (Fig. 10, paras. 112-115; base station has a plurality of antennas that transmit and receive data, which are transceivers.)
one or more memories comprising instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively configured to execute the instructions and cause the AP P&S Ref. No. QUAL/2201895USQUALCOMM Ref. No.: 220189542 to: (para. 110; processor and memory for a base station.)
receive, via the at least one transceiver while communicating with at least one station on a first set of channels, (Fig. 1, paras. 24-28; UE, which is a mobile station, communicates with base stations such as Node Bs of WAN. The UE is a station and the Node B is an access point.)
information regarding a second set of channels not currently being used by the AP; (paras. 30-32; WAN may be on a licensed frequency band. Paras. 33-34; unused bands such as TV white space may be used to support P2P communication. Therefore, they are not currently used by the apparatus. para. 44, 50-51; UE can sense unlicensed channels to see if they are open for use.)
wherein the AP operates only on the first set of channels, (paras. 28-34; WAN communication refers to communication between a UE and a base station. WAN may operate only on one or more frequency channels that are licensed to a network operator. If P2P communication shares the same licensed spectrum used for WAN communication, the effectiveness and capacity of the WAN may be degraded. P2P is supported on any unlicensed band. Para. 46; base stations may have sensing capabilities even if they may not transmit on unlicensed channels. Examiner asserts this anticipates, but to the extent it does not it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to manage channels outside of the channels the base station operates on in order to provide for establishment and maintenance of P2P operation while maintaining the capacity of the base station network (Barbieri, paras. 43, 34).)
and transmit, via the at least one transceiver, an off-channel indication that identifies one or more of the second set of channels that are recommended to the at least one station for peer-to-peer (P2P) communications with at least one other station, (para. 33; unlicensed users can transmit when no primary users are transmitting. Para. 40; UE detects if any primary and/or secondary users are using a channel. Therefore, the statement that nobody is using a channel is a recommendation to use the channel. para. 50-52; UEs report sensing results to the station. Station determines that P2P communication can take place between UEs and provides the channel to them for them to engage in P2P.)
wherein the at least one other station is outside an association of the AP; (Fig. 1, paras. 28-29; P2P communication is direct communication between UEs. UE 120e does not communicate with base station 110c and only engages in P2P communication with 120f. Para. 46; base stations may have sensing capabilities even if they may not transmit on unlicensed channels, therefore base station can still measure interference on channels without relying on UEs reporting sensing results.)
receive, from the at least one station via the at least one transceiver, a request (para. 48; UE may request a certain channel or other resources. Para. 54; handover to other channels. Scheduling was previously taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to request a modification of the scheduling in order to adapt to changing communication needs.)
But Barbieri does not explicitly teach a service period availability.
Asterjadhi, however, does teach transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a service period availability indication that indicates when the at least one station is permitted to use the one or more of the second set of channels that are recommended to the at least one station for P2P communications. (Barbieri previously taught outputting an indication of a channel to use, see above, especially at para. 52, but did not teach an indication of timing (“when”). For when, see Asterjadhi, para. 138; system may negotiate target wake time service periods which schedules particular links for particular times. Para. 166-167; system sends a target switch time of a link state.)
wherein the service period availability indication comprises a start time, a service period duration, (paras. 21-23, 165-167; start or end time of a link. Para. 152; duration field.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the access point of Barbieri with the service period availability in order to schedule communications to avoid interference.
But modified Barbieri does not explicitly teach a persistence field.
Patil, however, does teach periodicity, (paras. 35, 98; periodicity.)
and a persistence field that indicates a duration for which the permission to use the one or more of the second set of channels by the at least one station remains valid. (para. 74; lifetime information, persistence information. Para. 91-93; persistence subfield.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the access point of modified Barbieri with the persistence field in order to communicate a guaranteed validity of the TWT schedule. (Patil, para. 91)
But modified Barbieri does not explicitly teach suspending or terminating a schedule.
Seok, however, does teach to suspend or terminate an off-channel schedule based on the service period availability indication; (Examiner notes that Patil may suggest this limitation by itself, see Patil, paras. 57-59; STA may subscribe to a particular TWT schedule. Para. 61, 97; AP may suspend, modify or suggest alternate TWT schedules. This suggests that the STA can unsubscribe from a TWT to move to another TWT schedule, which would be a request to terminate or suspend the first schedule. Regardless, Examiner cites Seok, paras. 69-70; device terminates a service period.)
and communicate independent of the off-channel schedule in response to the request. (para. 70; device communicates the termination of the service period in the second band by communicating in the first band.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the termination of a service period in order to allow for negotiation according to automatic power saving.
With respect to Claim 31, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and Barbieri also teaches wherein the service period availability indication orthogonalizes P2P communications on the one or more of a second set of channels. (paras. 54-57; detection of interference and usage of channels to avoid interference, which is an orthogonalization of P2P communications. See also para. 5; Orthogonal FDMA networks. See also Asterjadhi, para. 138; system may negotiate target wake time service periods which schedules particular links for particular times. Para. 166-167; system sends a target switch time of a link state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to indicate availability in an orthogonal manner in order to prevent interference.)
With respect to Claim 32, it is substantially similar to Claim 31 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri (US Pub. 2011/0228666) in view of Asterjadhi (US Pub. 2021/0007168) in view of Patil (US Pub. 2019/0141631) in view of Seok (US Pub. 2020/0120603) and further in view of Patil (hereinafter “Patil2”, US Pub. 2018/0110046).
With respect to Claim 12, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a field that specifies one or more spatial reuse parameters.
Patil2, however, does teach wherein the service period availability indication further comprises a field that specifies one or more spatial reuse parameters. (Examiner asserts that Patil teaches the limitation because Patil teaches Wifi 6 (i.e. 802.11ax) see para. 37, which is defined to include spatial reuse. Regardless, to explicitly teach spatial reuse, Examiner cites Patil2, paras. 46-47, 57; Spatial reuse in BSS color.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the spatial reuse parameters in order to power save by quickly distinguishing overlapping communications. (Patil2, para. 46)
With respect to Claim 25, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 18, but does not explicitly teach a field that specifies one or more spatial reuse parameters.
Patil2, however, does teach wherein the service period availability indication further comprises a field that specifies one or more spatial reuse parameters. (Examiner asserts that Patil teaches the limitation because Patil teaches Wifi 6 (i.e. 802.11ax) see para. 37, which is defined to include spatial reuse. Regardless, to explicitly teach spatial reuse, Examiner cites Patil2, paras. 46-47, 57; Spatial reuse in BSS color.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the spatial reuse parameters in order to power save by quickly distinguishing overlapping communications. (Patil2, para. 46)
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barbieri (US Pub. 2011/0228666) in view of Asterjadhi (US Pub. 2021/0007168) in view of Patil (US Pub. 2019/0141631), in view of Seok (US Pub. 2020/0120603) and further in view of Chu (US Pub. 2021/0266891).
With respect to Claim 28, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 18, and Barbieri also teaches and participate in P2P communications with the at least one other apparatus on one or more of the second set of channels (para. 52; UEs establish P2P communication using assigned channel.)
But modified Barbieri does not explicitly teach a synchronization timer.
Chu, however, does teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: obtain medium synchronization on the one or more of the second set of channels; (para. 10-12; NAVSyncDelay timer for synchronization)
without waiting for expiration of a medium synchronization timer after obtaining the medium synchronization. (para. 10; link state is maintained by either backing off until NAVSyncDelay passes or until a PPDU with TXOP duration information is received. The latter allows for participating in communication without waiting for a medium synchronization.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the without waiting for a medium synchronization timer in order to allow for faster communication establishment.
Alternate Grounds
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-15, 16-18, 20-23, 26-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri (US Pub. 2011/0228666) in view of Asterjadhi (US Pub. 2021/0007168) in view of Seok (US Pub. 2020/0120603) and further in view of IEEE Std 802.11ax-2021 (“Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, Amendment 1: Enhancements for High-Efficiency WLAN,” hereinafter “IEEE Std,” IEEE Standards Association, Approved 2/9/2021).
With respect to Claim 1, Barbieri, Asterjadhi and Seok teach as above but under this ground of rejection do not explicitly teach a persistence field.
IEEE Std, however, does teach periodicity, (pg. 284; Periodicity field. Table 27-20, pg. 551; Midamble Periodicity field set in bits B8-B10)
and a persistence field that indicates a duration for which the permission to use the one or more of the second set of channels by the at least one station remains valid. (pg. 174, 393-394; broadcast TWT has persistence subfield.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Barbieri with the persistence field in order to communicate a guaranteed validity of the TWT schedule.
The same citation would apply, mutatis mutandis, to all other claims.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 10 that Barbieri does not render obvious the newly amended limitation of “wherein the apparatus operates only on the first set of channels.”
Examiner disagrees. Barbieri para. 30 states that “WAN 100 may operate on one or more frequency channels that are licensed to a network operator.” Para. 34 motivates not using the licensed channels, stating that “if P2P communication shares the same licensed spectrum used for WAN communication, then the effectiveness and capacity of the WAN may be degraded by having to share the available resources among various ongoing WAN communication and P2P communication. Hence, using separate unlicensed spectrum for P2P communication and licensed spectrum for WAN communication may be desirable.” Para. 35 states that “P2P may be supported on any unlicensed band.” The combination of teachings is that the base stations operate within their licensed spectrum, and the P2P communication engaged in by the UEs is on the unlicensed spectrum.
Applicant’s citation to Barbieri, para. 33 conflates the fact that a network may use an unlicensed band with the fact that the network operates on licensed channels. Spec, para. 26, which Applicant asserts as support for the amended limitation, does not state that the AP device is incapable of accessing the channel. Rather, the Infra AP mode merely contrasts device communication through the access point with direct P2P mode, i.e. a P2P channel is inherently a channel that the AP does not operate on because the definition of P2P is that the AP is not involved, not that the AP could not operate on that frequency. Consequently, Examiner asserts Barbieri anticipates.
Further, even if Barbieri does not anticipate, Barbieri renders obvious. The disclosure, most clearly at para. 34, motivates offloading communications into other bands in order to improve the capacity of the network bands. In other words, even if Barbieri discloses a system in which base stations can communicate over the P2P bands, and even if it was proper to construe “operate” as “use,” that simply means Barbieri wouldn’t anticipate. But a person of ordinary skill would find the claimed system obvious because Barbieri discloses and motivates the use of a technique where the base station manages bands outside of the bands it intends to use itself. The claimed system would still be obvious because the textual motivation for using the base stations to manage the unlicensed spectrum is not dependent upon the fact that the base stations can use those spectrums themselves. In short, even if the single stray sentence in para. 33 that the base stations themselves may sometimes use the unlicensed bands renders Barbieri nonanticipatory, it does not change the fact that the great weight of the disclosures motivate application of the same technique to bands the base stations couldn’t use.
At Remarks, pg. 11, Applicant argues Barberi does not teach “wherein the at least one other station is outside an association of the apparatus.”
Examiner makes 112a/b rejections to this limitation. Applicant cites Spec, para. 61 as support for the limitation. Para. 61 refers to Fig. 5, and states that “a first XR device (XR2) communicate[s] with an Infra AP, while STA2 communications with a second XR device (XR1) via a P2P link…In the illustrated example, XR2 is not associated with the Infra-AP.” But, of course, XR2 is associated with the Infra-AP, the preceding sentence states that XR2 communicates with an Infra AP, and Fig. 5 shows a direct connection between XR2 and the Infra AP.
Consequently, Examiner assumes para. 61 actually means that XR1 “is not associated with the Infra AP.” But this also is not true, as Fig. 5 describes an example system which contains both Infra AP and XR1. This creates a problem where a person of ordinary skill has to guess at what “not associated with” means – it clearly encompasses some relationships but apparently does not include others and the boundary between the two is entirely unknown. This makes the claim indefinite.
Examiner assumes what is being commented on is the lack of a direct connection between XR1 and Infra AP. The problem with this is that it does not comport with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The specification does not define association, so the plain meaning is used. At a minimum, the cited Spec, para. 61 and its related Fig. 5 do not support the proposition that Applicant has posited “at least one other station” such as either XR1 or XR2 being “outside an association of the [AP].” Assuming we take some other meaning of association such that para. 61 and Fig. 5 are more congruent with Claim 1, the definition of that term is undefined and therefore the claims are indefinite.
In other words, “outside an association” does not mean “lacks a direct connection,” and Examiner cannot presume the meaning of terms, Examiner can only conclude that the amendment to Claim 1 as reasonably interpreted is not supported by the specification and lacks a reasonably definite meaning. In the meantime, Examiner provides a 103 analysis under the assumption that lacking a direct connection is some species of the genus of “outside an association of.” This appears to comport with the argument from Remarks, pg. 11, which highlights disclosures where the base station receives sensing results from both the first and second UEs.
The example where the base station receives results from both UEs is one subset of the disclosure. Applicant argues that because, in one embodiment, the base station relies upon sensing queries and results to both UEs that will engage in P2P communications, both devices must have an association with the base station. But Barbieri, para. 46 discloses that the base stations may also have sensing capabilities. Para. 48 discloses that “[a] first UE” may send a request to its serving base station for help with setting up the P2P connection. It is true that paras. 49-51 discuss the base station querying both UEs, but those paragraphs are described as optional and do not state anything about requiring direct (as opposed to indirect) communication, and the system contemplates working with devices outside of any base station coverage area, see para. 42. The argument that the system may contemplate receiving sensing from both UEs does not persuasive Examiner that the non-association feature is nonobvious when the same document provides substitute mechanisms for getting the same sensing data and does not describe a direct communication line to both UEs that wish to engage in P2P as necessary.
Regardless, the 103 argument fails because whatever is meant by the language, Barbieri teaches. Barbieri Fig. 1 discloses devices with direct connections to base stations, such as 120a’s connection to 110a, which sits in the same position as Spec, Fig. 5, XR2’s connection to Infra AP, which Spec, para. 61 explicitly states is outside the association and therefore anticipatory of the claim language. Barbieri Fig. 2 also discloses devices without direct connections to base stations, such as 120e, which sits outside of 110c’s cell and has no arrow to 110c, and has only a direct connection to 120f. This is directly analogous to Fig. 5, XR1’s connection to STA2 and lack of connection to Infra AP.
At Remarks, pgs. 11-12, Applicant reargues the subject matter of Claim 10 which has been moved into the independent claims. Examiner maintains the rejection for the reasons previously put forth in prior discussions. Applicant does not dispute that Seok teaches a decision to suspend a schedule and a transmission informing of that suspension. Applicant only argues that the judgment is not pursuant to a request that the judgment be performed. Applicant does not dispute that a request for action was known. Applicant seeks an anticipatory reference for a request for a suspension. The feature is obvious over the suspension being made and requests generally, and Examiner is not persuaded that a failure to anticipate a request for a suspension makes a request for a suspension nonobvious.
At Remarks, pg. 12, Applicant argues Examiner has not taught the persistence field. The argument is unpersuasive because Applicant makes a mere allegation of patentability. Further, the issue has been argued multiple times before and Examiner stands on the previous argument.
At Remarks, pg. 12-13, Applicant argues the Service Period in Seok is used to indicate communications for a non P2P system. Examiner agrees Seok does not anticipate. Applicant does not explain why the indication of a recommended communication in Barbieri together with the service period indication in Seok does not render the claim obvious.
The remaining arguments are derivative of the above and are moot. Examiner maintains the 103 rejection to all claims. Examiner adds 112a/b rejections to all claims.
All claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights