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, 10-18, 20-23, 25-32
The following claim(s) is/are amended: -
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 4, 9, 19, 24
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-18, 20-23, 25-32 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/25/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed 6/25/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
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, 13-14, 16-18, 20-23, 26-27 and 30-32 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) and further in view of Patil (US Pub. 2019/0141631).
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 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.)
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)
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 an off-channel schedule determined by the service period availability indication; (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 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.)
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.)
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. (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)
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 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.)
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.)
But Barbieri does not explicitly teach a service period availability.
Asterjadhi, however, does teach output, for transmission, 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)
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 10, 15 and 29 are 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) and further in view of Seok (US Pub. 2020/0120603).
With respect to Claim 10, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Barbieri also teaches 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 modified Barbieri does not explicitly teach a request to suspend or terminate a schedule.
Seok, 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, from the at least one station, a request to suspend or terminate an off-channel schedule determined by 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 15, modified Barbieri teaches the apparatus of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach operation classes.
Seok, however, does teach 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.)
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 operation classes in order to allow for negotiation according to supported capabilities.
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.
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) 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), 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, 13-14, 16-18, 20-23, 26-27 and 30-32 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) 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 and Asterjadhi 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 makes no amendment and stands on argument. At Remarks, pgs. 11-12, Applicant argues that Asterjadhi’s scheduling is not scheduling for P2P communications. Applicant acknowledges Examiner cited Barbieri for the P2P communications, but argues that because Asterjadhi teaches scheduling in a different context it does not teach scheduling in a P2P context.
Applicant improperly piecemeals and the combination teaches. Asterjadhi teaches a technique to avoid interference by scheduling communications. Applicant does not argue, because it is not true, that the wireless communication P2P channels are not subject to interference. Barbieri explicitly acknowledges that the channels in question may suffer from interference, see, e.g. paras. 36, 50. Consequently, the communication channels in Asterjadhi and Barbieri are “equivalent” (which is not the proper standard, see MPEP 2143, the actual standard is “similar”) in that they both suffer from an interference problem and Asterjadhi teaches a technique to overcome the problem by answering “when” (to use Applicant’s terminology) each device may use the channel.
At Remarks, pg. 12, Applicant argues that Patil’s teaching of a persistence field does not teach the claimed persistence field.
Applicant again improperly piecemeals and the combination teaches. Applicant does not dispute the citation for the 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.” Applicant agrees that Patil discloses a persistence field which Applicant argues “indicates parameter stability (e.g. how long the TWT scheduling parameters will remain unchanged).” (Remarks, pg. 12) Therefore, the art knew it could apply a persistence field to indicate how long other parameters would remain unchanged. The combination renders obvious a persistence field that indicates “how long” the service period availability “will remain unchanged,” and the service period availability “indicates when the at least one station is permitted to use [the channel].” That is something 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.”
Further, the argument is unpersuasive because Applicant argues that “No access permission is granted or revoked” but the a device that will follow TWT scheduling is being granted permission according to the schedule. In other words, in a system in which devices agree to follow a TWT schedule, the TWT schedule grants permission to the device scheduled and prevents or revokes permission to the other devices. Guaranteeing that scheduling parameters will not change for a period is “a duration” for “permission” because it ensures to the device that its TWT scheduling parameters will not be modified until the expiration of the persistence field.
Applicant argues that “Examiner’s reasoning conflates parameter stability with permission validity.” Examiner disagrees. Examiner’s reasoning relates “stability” (as Applicant calls it) with “duration” because a statement that X has guaranteed validity for a persistence field length is a duration for which X is valid. Applicant argues that “[i]n Patil, when the persistence field reaches zero, the parameters change but the STA continues participating” but it is clear from Asterjadhi para. 138 that scheduling must be negotiated and it is clear from Barbieri that devices may interfere with each other, so in combination the end of a duration of guaranteed validity of schedule parameters functions as an end to permission.
Finally, at Remarks, pgs. 15-16, Applicant deals with the alternate ground of rejection by renewing the previous argument that Asterjadhi does not teach the “when” of the “service period availability indication” and states “This difference applies regardless of which reference is used for the persistence field.” Consequently, Applicant does not dispute that the IEEE reference teaches what it was cited to teach – the periodicity and persistence field. Therefore, even if Patil were deficient as to the main ground of rejection the alternate ground of rejection would teach if the service period indication argument as to Barbieri/Asterjadhi was unpersuasive. For the reasons above there is no problem in the Barbieri/Asterjadhi teaching and the alternate ground provides another reason for the claims to be obvious.
The remainder of the arguments to other claims are derivative of the above arguments. The arguments are unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the rejections to all claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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