DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on May 8, 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al. (US 2024/0098712) in view of Cariou et al. (EP 3820225 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Chitrakar teaches a second wireless access point (AP) device in a multi-AP (MAP) coordinating set of APs (“STA2-1 and STA2-2 are associated with AP2 (BSS2), while STA1-1 and STA1-2 are associated with AP1 (BSS1)” – See [0068]; AP2 (second AP) is in is coordinating set with AP1), the second AP comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit traffic to a second station (STA) in a second target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) based on parameters of a second TWT operation between the second AP and the second STA (“Once the Coordinated TWT SPs have been negotiated … AP2 transmits to STA1-1 and STA2-1” – See [0077]; AP2 transmits traffic to STA2-1 (second STA) in a TWT operation);
a backhaul interface configured to:
receive, from a first AP, a MAP coordination announcement that includes (i) an indication that the first AP has obtained a TXOP and (ii) parameters of a first TWT operation between the first AP and a first STA, and transmit, to the first AP, a MAP coordination response that indicates capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination (“In an embodiment, individual Target Wake Time (TWT) agreement may be negotiated as Coordinated SPs between APs. A Requesting AP may act as a TWT Requester STA, and a Responding AP may act as a TWT Responder STA. Referring to FIG. 9, STA1-1 and STA1-2 are associated with AP1, STA2-1 and STA2-2 are associated with AP2, and STA3-1 is associated with AP3. Individual TWT agreements may be negotiated as Coordinated SPs 902 between the APs” – See [0077]; “For example, based on the report, AP3's buffered traffic is much less than that of AP2, so AP1 decides to share the TXOP with AP2, and thus transmits a MAP TF 1108 to AP2 to indicate AP1's intention to share the TXOP with AP2 and the related transmission parameters such as the RU assigned to AP2” – See [0080]; See also Fig. 2; The MAP coordination announcement received by AP2 (second AP) from AP1 (first AP) includes parameters of a first TWT operation and an indication of the AP1’s intention to share a TXOP that it has obtained),
wherein information on a first SP is included in the parameters of the first TWT operation and information on a second SP is included in the parameters of the second TWT operation (“a TWT Setup frame 1000 for TWT Request/Response that are used to setup coordinated SPs” – See [0078]; “TWT Setup frames may be used to negotiate the Coordinated SPs. Referring to an example TWT Setup frame 1900 of FIG. 19 that may be utilized for TWT Request and Response to setup Multi-AP Coordinated TWT SPs, TWT Setup frame 1900 may include one or more TWT Element fields 1902 which include a Coordinated SP Type field 1904 for specifying the Multi-AP Coordination scheme and/or allowed traffic type” – See [0088]; See also Fig. 15; Parameters of a first TWT SP operation 1502 are included in TWT setup request/response frames for TWT SP1 negotiation and parameters of a second TWT SP operation 1504 are included in TWT setup request/response frames for TWT SP2 negotiation); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver and the backhaul interface, the processor configured to determine, based on the MAP coordination announcement, the capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination (“Coordinated SP Response frame 1800 may include a Status field 1802 that may indicate whether the request was accepted or rejected” – See [0086]; “receive a response frame from the second AP, the response frame indicating acceptance of the request to setup one or more Coordinated SPs; wherein the transmitter 3502 may be further configured to transmit frames to one or more associated STAs to setup Scheduled SPs that overlap with the Coordinated SPs” – See [0136]; AP2 determines to accept the request (i.e., capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination) and sends a response indicating acceptance and that it is capable of participation in the coordination),
wherein the MAP coordination response includes an indication that the second AP is capable of participating in MAP coordination (“receive a response frame from the second AP, the response frame indicating acceptance of the request to setup one or more Coordinated SPs; wherein the transmitter 3502 may be further configured to transmit frames to one or more associated STAs to setup Scheduled SPs that overlap with the Coordinated SPs” – See [0136]; The response frame includes an indication that the request has been accepted (i.e., the second AP is capable of participating in MAP coordination)).
Chitrakar does not explicitly teach modifying, based on the MAP coordination announcement, the parameters of the second TWT operation based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation.
However, Cariou teaches modifying, based on the MAP coordination announcement, the parameters of the second TWT operation based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation (“For that reason, if 2 TWT SPs from 2 neighbor APs have to be scheduled at the same time, the following may be done: Negotiate a way for the APs to share the resources of a TxOP: TDMA or FDMA/OFDMA during the TxOP within that SP; Negotiation would start by recognizing that there are 2 overlapping TWT SPs, and coordinate only during these TWT SPs” – See [0019]; “a multi-AP coordination negotiation for an overlapping TWT SP between 2 APs could looks as follows: Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP request frame; and Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP response frame. In some embodiments, an AP1 with TWT SP1 that overlap (partially or completely) with TWT SP2 of AP2. The AP1 can send a Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP request frame to the other AP2. The request frame may include: A TWT element defining the TWT SP1 that is overlapping with TWT SP2, possibly also a TWT element defining the TWT SP2; possibly instead a TWT SP that has the soonest start time and the latest end time among the start times and end times of both TWT SP1 and SP2” – See [0022]; “decode a multi-AP coordination within TWT SP response frame from the AP2 indicating whether the AP2 will agree to share the resources of the TxOP during the overlapping TWT SP, whether the AP2 has agreed to the proposed terms or whether the AP2 is proposing different terms for sharing resources under the negotiated agreement” – See [0009]; “the response can include a TWT element with different parameters or same parameters, can include another proposed mode of operation or the same, and includes a field to indicate if the agreement is agreed, rejected, amended” – See [0024]; The second AP modifies the parameters of the second TWT operation to include different/amended parameters that the second AP is proposing during the coordination/negotiation, wherein the modification of the parameters is based on a partial or complete overlap between the first SP and the second SP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar to include modifying, based on the MAP coordination announcement, the parameters of the second TWT operation based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the second AP to propose alternative terms for sharing resources when an overlap between the first and second SPs is identified (See Cariou, [0009] and [0024]).
Regarding Claim 9, Chitrakar in view of Cariou teaches the second AP of Claim 8. Chitrakar further teaches that the processor is further configured to determine, based on the MAP coordination announcement, that the second AP is not capable of performing MAP coordination with the first AP, and the MAP coordination response includes an indication that the second AP declines to participate in MAP coordination (“a Status field 1802 that may indicate whether the request was accepted or rejected” – See [0086]; When the second AP is not capable of performing the coordination, the response may indicate that the request was rejected and on the second AP will not perform coordination).
Regarding Claim 13, Chitrakar in view of Cariou teaches the second AP of Claim 8. Chitrakar further teaches that the first TWT operation corresponds to a restricted TWT schedule (“Enhanced TWP SPs may also be known as Restricted TWT SPs since transmission of traffic types of Traffic IDs (TID) other than the ones allowed by the TWT SPs are restricted during the TWT SPs” – See [0055]),
the backhaul interface is further configured to:
receive, from the first AP, the parameters corresponding to the restricted TWT schedule and a request for the second AP to establish a quiet interval in the second AP's basic service set (BSS) for the second STA in restricted TWT SPs corresponding to the restricted TWT schedule (“AP2 may request Enhanced TWT information of AP1 and AP3 by transmitting a SP Info Request 2402 to AP1 and a SP Info Request 2404 to AP3 respectively” – See [0100]; The second AP receives parameters corresponding to the restricted TWT in the form of a request to establish a quiet interval where each AP’s restricted TWTs do not overlap); and
transmit, to the first AP, a response indicating whether or not the second AP will establish the quiet interval during the restricted SPs, during which transmissions will not be allowed for the second STA (“AP1 and AP3 gathers information of AP2's enhanced TWT SPs for low latency either by passively listening to AP2's Beacon frames or through exchange of SP Info Request/Response frames” – See [0107]; The second AP transmits a response indicating restricted TWTs to coordinate quiet intervals).
Regarding Claim 14, Chitrakar in view of Cariou teaches the second AP of Claim 13. Chitrakar further teaches that the response from the second AP indicates that the second AP will establish a deprioritized quiet interval in the second AP's BSS during the restricted TWT SPs, during which transmissions in the second AP's BSS will not be allowed for the second STA upon fulfillment of some predetermined conditions by the second STA (“the first APs requesting to join the TWT SP are the TWT Requesting STAs (or TWT Scheduled STA) while the second AP accepting the request is the TWT Responding STA (or TWT Scheduling STA)” – See [0108]; “Enhanced TWP SPs may also be known as Restricted TWT SPs since transmission of traffic types of Traffic IDs (TID) other than the ones allowed by the TWT SPs are restricted during the TWT SPs. In order to further restrict legacy STAs from transmitting during the Enhanced TWT SPs, the AP may further transmit Quiet element/Quiet Channel element to schedule quiet intervals that overlap with the Enhanced TWT SPs” – See [0055]; The response indicates that the second AP accepts the request to establish the quiet interval where low-priority traffic is not allowed).
Response to Arguments
On page 18 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Chitrakar does not teach that “the MAP coordination response includes an indication that the second AP is capable of participating in MAP coordination,” as recited in independent claim 8. Applicant’s arguments filed on May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim does not recite any specific limitations in regard to a capability of participating in MAP coordination. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation, an indication of a capability of participating in MAP coordination may include an indication that the AP is or is not capable of participating in MAP coordination. Chitrakar’s status field in the coordinated SP response frame (MAP coordination response) serves as such an indication, since the status field may indicate a value of “accepted” in the case that the AP is capable of participating in MAP coordination using the requested parameters or a value of “rejected” in the case that the AP is not capable of participating in MAP coordination using the requested parameters.
On page 17-19 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Monajemi, Chitrakar, and Cariou do not teach that “determine, based on the MAP coordination response whether to perform MAP coordination with the second AP during the TXOP, determine, based on the MAP coordination response whether to modify the parameters of the first TWT operation based on the interference notification message; and determine, based on the parameters of the second TWT operation, whether to modify the parameters of the first TWT operation based on the overlap between the second SP and the first SP” as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 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 Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights