Response to Amendment
This office action in response to a communication received on February 3, 2026.
Claims 1-53 have been cancelled.
Claims 54-73 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments towards the prior art rejection of claims 54-73 is persuasive. However, a new grounds of rejection is provided as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 54-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al (USPUB 2020/0404549, hereinafter “Verma”) in view of Barriac et al. (USPUB 2015/0063327, hereinafter “Barriac”), and in further view of Cherian et al (USPUB 2020/0077273, hereinafter “Cherian”).
Regarding claim 54, Verma teaches a method of controlling wireless transmissions in a wireless communication system, the method comprising an access point:
contending with at least one further access point for a set of transmission resources (see ¶130, AP1 can win contention of frequency bandwidth);
when the access point wins contention for the set of transmission resources, sharing at least a subset of the transmission resources with the at least one further access point (see ¶¶131-32, wherein the winning AP can initiate a coordinated AP session to share the frequency bandwidth);
exchanging information with the at least one further access point (see ¶133, ¶¶103-04 and ¶108, wherein the APs can exchange information); and
based on the exchanged information, coordinating wireless transmissions on the shared subset of transmission resources (¶¶137-38, wherein the APs utilize the allocated frequency bandwidth received from the first AP).
Verma does not explicitly indicate that the exchanged information comprising information on one or more wireless stations served by the at least one further access point and/or information on one or more wireless stations served by the access point, and wherein at least part of the exchanged information is antenna-port specific with respect to multiple antenna ports.
Barriac teaches a system that coordinates frequency bandwidth resources between access points, where as part of the coordination the APs share information regarding including time, frequency and space (¶¶93-94 and ¶¶103-05). Barriac additionally indicates that the APs can coordinate spatial domains including beam alignment (¶97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the at the effective filing date of the application that Verma’s AP coordination system can be expanded to include additional information exchange, including STA interference information and other information. This would allow the coordinating AP to provide better resource allocation to each APs to better avoid interference while maintaining effective resource usage.
Cherian teaches an multi-AP coordination system (¶122), wherein the APs can exchange information to reduce interference (¶122). Chearian further teaches that bearmforming of transmissions explicitly include multiple antenna-ports, the use of different beams and antenna-ports affect the spatial domain of the transmission (¶124) and beamforming can be coordinated to avoid interference (¶124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the at the effective filing date of the application that Verma’s AP coordination system to improve the coordination between APs to include not only time and spatial coordination as taught in Barriac, but with the additional teaching of Cherian to explicitly make it clear that beam forming and spatial domain information has to take into account multiple antenna-ports because it’s the antenna-ports that affect the direction of the beams (¶¶124-125). The combination would result in Verma’s system to additionally include antenna-ports along with beamforming coordination to help further prevent interference in a coordinated multi-AP system.
Claim 72 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 54.
Regarding claim 63, Verma teaches a method of controlling wireless transmissions in a wireless communication system, the method comprising an access point:
contending with one or more further access points for a set of transmission resources (see ¶130, AP1 can win contention of frequency bandwidth);
when one of the one or more further access points winning contention for the set of transmission resources, sharing at least a subset of the transmission resources with the further access point that won the contention (see ¶¶131-32, wherein the winning AP can initiate a coordinated AP session to share the frequency bandwidth);
exchanging information with further the access point that won the contention (see ¶133, ¶¶103-04 and ¶108, wherein the APs can exchange information); and
based on the exchanged information, coordinating wireless transmissions on the shared subset of transmission resources (¶¶137-38, wherein the APs utilize the allocated frequency bandwidth received from the first AP).
Verma does not explicitly indicate that the exchanged information comprising information on one or more wireless stations served by the at least one further access point and/or information on one or more wireless stations served by the access point wherein at least part of the exchanged information is antenna-port specific with respect to multiple antenna ports.
Barriac teaches a system that coordinates frequency bandwidth resources between access points, where as part of the coordination the APs share information regarding the STAs including interference information (¶93 and ¶¶103-05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the at the effective filing date of the application that Verma’s AP coordination system can be expanded to include additional information exchange, including STA interference information and other information. This would allow the coordinating AP to provide better resource allocation to each APs to better avoid interference while maintaining effective resource usage.
Cherian teaches an multi-AP coordination system (¶122), wherein the APs can exchange information to reduce interference (¶122). Chearian further teaches that bearmforming of transmissions explicitly include multiple antenna-ports, the use of different beams and antenna-ports affect the spatial domain of the transmission (¶124) and beamforming can be coordinated to avoid interference (¶124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the at the effective filing date of the application that Verma’s AP coordination system to improve the coordination between APs to include not only time and spatial coordination as taught in Barriac, but with the additional teaching of Cherian to explicitly make it clear that beam forming and spatial domain information has to take into account multiple antenna-ports because it’s the antenna-ports that affect the direction of the beams (¶¶124-125). The combination would result in Verma’s system to additionally include antenna-ports along with beamforming coordination to help further prevent interference in a coordinated multi-AP system.
Claim 73 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 63.
Regarding claim 55, Verma, as improved by Barriac teaches the method of claim 54 wherein the exchanged information comprises information on at least one of: positions of the one or more wireless stations served by the access point; interference measured by the access point; and interference measured by the one or more wireless stations served by the access point (see Barriac ¶103).
The teachings are combinable for the rationale of claim 54.
Claim 65 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 55.
Regarding claim 56, Verma, as improved by Barriac teaches the method of claim 54 wherein the exchanged information comprises information on at least one of: positions of the one or more wireless stations served by the at least one further access point; interference measured by the at least one further access point; interference measured by the one or more wireless stations served by the at least one further access point; and a bandwidth puncturing pattern applied by the at least one further access point (see Barriac ¶103).
The teachings are combinable for the rationale of claim 54.
Claim 64 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 56.
Regarding claim 57, Verma, as improved by Barriac and Cherian teaches the method of claim 54 wherein at least a part of the exchanged information is antenna-port specific with respect to multiple antenna ports (See Barriac, ¶97 wherein coordination can be include specific beams, see also Cherian, ¶¶124-125 that beamforming information include multiple antenna port information) of at least one of the access point; and a wireless station served by the access point (See Barriac, ¶¶95-99).
The teachings are combinable for the rationale of claim 54.
Regarding claim 58, Verma, as improved by Barriac teaches the method of claim 54 wherein at least a part of the exchanged information is antenna-port specific with respect to multiple antenna ports (See Barriac, ¶97 wherein coordination can be include specific beams, see also Cherian, ¶¶124-125 that beamforming information include multiple antenna port information) of at least one of the at least one further access point; and a wireless station served by the at least one further access point (See Barriac, ¶¶95-99).
The teachings are combinable for the rationale of claim 54.
Claim 66 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 58.
Regarding claim 59, Verma teaches the method of claim 54 wherein the access point and the at least one further access point differ with respect to a supported bandwidth of wireless transmissions (¶103 and 108, wherein the first AP determines the capabilities and preferences of each coordinating AP and then allocates specific bandwidth frequencies based upon those capabilities, ¶¶118-121).
Claim 68 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 58.
Regarding claim 60, Verma, as improved by Barriac teaches the method of claim 54. Verma does not explicitly indicate wherein the exchanged information applies to multiple transmission opportunities on the transmission resources, and wherein the subset of transmission resources differs for at least some of the multiple transmission opportunities.
Barriac teaches the exchanged information applies to multiple transmission opportunities on the transmission resources, and wherein the subset of transmission resources differs for at least some of the multiple transmission opportunities. (see Barriac, ¶¶144-45, wherein the APs follow the coordination over many TxOPs and apply different rules in different time periods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made to use Barriac’s teaching of having different STAs with different restriction periods. The combination would allow Verma’s APs to allow certain non-interference STAs to use the same bandwidths, while restricting certain STAs that do have interference conditions in Verma’s system, the combination would better utilize the available bandwidth based upon the location of the STAs.
Claim 69 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 60.
Regarding claim 61, Verma teaches the method of claim 54 wherein the wireless transmissions are based on orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) (¶51).
Claim 70 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 58.
Regarding claim 62, Verma teaches the method of claim 54 wherein the wireless communication system is based on a wireless local area network (WLAN) technology (¶51).
Claim 71 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 58.
Regarding claim 67, Verma, as improved by Barriac and Cherian teaches the method of claim 63 wherein at least a part of the exchanged information is antenna-port specific with respect to multiple antenna ports (See Barriac, ¶97 wherein coordination can be include specific beams, see also Cherian, ¶¶124-125 that beamforming information include multiple antenna port information) of at least one of the further access point that won the contention; and a wireless device served by the further access point that won the contention access point (See Barriac, ¶¶95-99, see also Verma ¶¶103-04 and ¶108).
The teachings are combinable for the rationale of claim 63.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights