DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 12/01/2025.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 2 has been cancelled.
Rejections under §112
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 were each rejected under §112(b) in the last Office Action. These rejections are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s corresponding corrective claim amendments.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 9, the Examiner notes that no citation has been provided by Applicant to show direct support for its current amendments made to each of its independent claims. In this regard, claims 1, 8, and 9 were amended to recite: “…execut[ing] first cooperative processing for communication with a terminal apparatus…,” “…transmitting, by the second channel, a second signal to the terminal apparatus…,” and “transmitting, by the first channel, a first signal to the terminal apparatus.” Applicant previously provided support for its claim amendments, made to each of its independent claims, in its last response, citing “claim 2, and FIGs. 7 and 8 and the associated text. Applicants Remarks at p. 6 of its 07/03/2025 response. This supporting disclosure only describes a general “cooperative transmission of data,” as depicted in both Figs. 7 and 8, as part of base station negotiation/cooperation procedures without describing any signal transmissions to a terminal device, much less any specific communications with a terminal device.
Therefore, the Examiner requests Applicant provide support in its original disclosure for the above-referenced claim amendments in its next response.
Applicant further argues that “with respect to claim 1, Verma and Kneckt, individually and in combination, do not teach or render obvious…,” the above-amended claim features. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 7. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In this regard, Verma clearly describes cooperative access point (AP) negotiation of channel reservation resources for the purpose of transmitting terminal data in a coordinated transmission session (paras. [0010], [0015]-[0016], and [0107]-[0110]; blocks 712 of Fig. 7, and 804 of Fig. 8A). This subject matter of Verma fairly teaches/suggest the amended claim feature of: “execut[ing] first cooperative processing for communication with a terminal apparatus.”
Verma also describes transmitting multiple DL data signals from cooperating APs to a terminal device via multiple corresponding channels, which are unique portions of frequency bandwidth (paras. [0052], [0100], [0105], [0124], [0132], and [0141]; blocks 712 of Fig. 7 and 812 of Fig. 8B). This subject matter of Verma fairly teaches/suggests the amended claim features of: “…transmitting, by the second channel, a second signal to the terminal apparatus…,” and “transmitting, by the first channel, a first signal to the terminal apparatus.” Therefore, Verma clearly reads on each of the contested claim features. As such, Applicant’s additional arguments against the teachings of Kneckt, without considering Verma, are moot.
Moreover, in response to Applicant's arguments against the applied prior art references in isolation, i.e., Kneckt, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references, i.e., the combination of Verma in view of Kneckt. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the current instance, Kneckt need not show what Verma already explicitly describes/teaches.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant arguments posited for each of independent claims 1, 8, and 9, are determined not to be persuasive. Further, Applicant must provide original disclosure support for its contested, newly-amended claim subject matter.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2020/0404549 A1, Verma et al. (hereinafter “Verma”), in view of US PG Pub 2014/0092860 A1,Kneckt et al. (hereinafter “Kneckt”).
With respect to claim 1, Verma teaches:
A base station (BS(s) 102/104 of Fig. 1; AP 602 of Fig. 6A) serving as a second base station comprises a wireless signal processing circuit configured to use (para. [0096]; and WCD 610 of Fig. 6A) a first channel held in common with another base station serving as a first base station (paras. [0016], [0055], [0058], and [0125] —a unique/reserved portion of the frequency bandwidth, i.e., sub/channels, can be allocated to a second AP (access point) in coordination with a first AP),
wherein the wireless signal processing circuit is configured to execute first cooperative processing for communication with a terminal apparatus (paras. [0100], [0105]; and [0109]; blocks 712 of Fig. 7, and 804 of Fig. 8A —cooperative AP processing can be for the purpose of data communications with a terminal device) in a case of the first base station performs a carrier sensing and acquiring a transmission right for the first channel that is a primary channel (paras. [0081]-[0084], [0104], [0130]-[0135], and [0141]-[0142]—a first AP can obtain ownership of a TXOP, i.e., a transmission resource ownership right, over a portion of the frequency bandwidth associated with a designated primary channel, according to a distributed coordination function (DCF), i.e., the bandwidth may be associated w/a bonded primary 20MHz channel, para. [0073] —the first AP can then coordinate a cooperative AP transmission session with a second and/or third AP(s) for communicating using the allocated TXOP channel resources, i.e., one or more 20MHz channels of the reserved TXOP),
the second base station performing a second carrier sensing (paras. [0081]-[0084], [0104], [0130]-[0135], and [0142]-[0144], —a second AP can also perform carrier sensing operation to attempt to obtain a TXOP —AP 2 can also be triggered to solicit its wireless stations to perform measurements for its channel allocation, which is a carrier sensing operation), and
wherein the first cooperative processing includes, transmitting, by the second channel, a second signal to the terminal apparatus (paras. [0052], [0100], [0105], [0124], [0132], and [0141]; blocks 712 of Fig. 7 and 812 of Fig. 8B —during a coordinated transmission session a terminal device associated with coordinating APs can receive/transmit DL/UL data with a corresponding BS, at the same time over different channels) on the basis of the second transmission right cooperating with the first base station transmitting, by the first channel, a first signal to the terminal apparatus (paras. [0052], [0100], [0105], [0124], [0132], and [0141]; blocks 712 of Fig. 7 and 812 of Fig. 8B —during a coordinated transmission session a terminal device associated with coordinating APs can receive/transmit DL/UL data with a corresponding BS, at the same time over different channels) based on the first transmission right (paras. [0130]-[0133], [0142], [0153], and [0164]-[0165]; and packet 1350 Fig. 13B —the second AP can acquire from the first AP, TXOP allocated channel resources of the unique 20MHz channel for a coordinated AP transmission, and then transmit a forward indication frame to one or more of its associated BSS STA(s), while the first AP can transmit a first signal over the self-reserved TXOP of the 40MHz channel); and
wherein the first cooperative processing is executed in response to the first base station acquiring the first transmission right for the first channel and the second base station acquiring the second transmission right for the second channel (paras. [0130]-[0133], [0142], [0152]-[0153], and [0164]-[0165] —the second AP can participate in cooperative processing with the first AP, based on the TXOP being acquired by the first AP, where the second AP acquires a transmission right in coordination with the first AP).
However, Verma does not explicitly teach:
acquiring, as a result of the second carrier sensing, a second transmission right for a second channel that is a secondary channel of the second base station.
Kneckt does teach
as a result of a second carrier sensing operation, a second base station acquiring a transmission right for a secondary channel of the second base station (paras. [0019], [0027], and [0029]-[0031] —a carrier sensing operation can be initially carried out for a primary channel where a first BS wins a TXOP, and a second BS may also perform carrier sensing for determining its transmission right to use a secondary channel, different from a primary channel).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verma's cooperative processing where a first base station wins a TXOP via a first carrier sensing operation to a primary channel, with a second carrier sensing operation being performed by a second base station to acquire a transmission right to its secondary channel, as taught by Kneckt.
The motivation for doing so would have been to cooperate with the first BS having a TXOP, by performing carrier sensing on secondary channel as part of an independent CCA to facilitate coordinated data transmission over both primary and secondary channels, as recognized by Kneckt (paras. [0019], [0027], and [0029]-[0031]).
With respect to claim 3, Verma in view of Kneckt teaches:
The base station according to claim 1, wherein the first cooperative processing includes
reserving transmission by the second channel in a period up to completion of transmission of the second signal (Verma: paras. [0149]-[0150] and [0154]; and reserved time t5 to t6 for AP2 UL/DL 1152/1252 of Figs. 11-12 —the reserved unique 20MHz channel for coordinated AP2 transmission can be completed within time period between t5-t6).
With respect to claim 4, Verma in view of Kneckt teaches:
The base station according to claim 1, wherein the wireless signal processing circuit is configured to, in a case of the second base station acquiring the transmission right for the first channel, execute second cooperative processing, wherein the second cooperative processing includes transmitting, by the first channel, a fourth signal to the terminal apparatus cooperating with the first base station transmitting a third signal to the terminal apparatus (paras. [0052], [0100], [0105], [0124], [0132], and [0141]; blocks 712 of Fig. 7 and 812 of Fig. 8B) by a third channel, wherein the second cooperative processing is executed in response to the first base station acquiring the third transmission right for the third channel and the second base station acquiring a fourth transmission right for the first channel (Verma: paras. [0099]-[0100], [0152]-[0153], and [0186]; and Fig. 12 —the AP2 can be configured to transmit one or more forward signals to any number of STAs over primary/secondary channel(s) in accordance with a coordinated TXOP assignment from AP1 —for example, a coordinated AP transmission (CAP TX) between the first AP (the coordinating AP) and any number of other selected AP(s), i.e., AP2, may concurrently receive UL signals from and transmit DL signals to respective STA(s) associated therewith during a respective TXOP —the coordination procedure of which would be the same, in accordance with any number of obvious variations for any number of signals with any number of transmission rights).
With respect to claim 5, Verma in view of Kneckt teaches:
The base station according to claim 4, wherein the second cooperative processing includes reserving transmission by the first channel in a period up to completion of transmission of the fourth signal (Verma: paras. [0149]-[0150] and [0154]; and reserved time t5 to t6 for AP2 UL/DL 1152/1252 of Figs. 11-12 —the reserved unique 20MHz channel for coordinated AP transmission can be completed within time period between t5-t6, and the assigned AP may concurrently transmit any number of DL signals to respective STA(s) associated therewith during a respective TXOP time period).
With respect to claim 7, Verma in view of Kneckt teaches:
The base station according to claim 4, wherein the wireless signal processing circuit is configured to, upon receiving from the first base station a fifth signal including information indicating whether or not the first base station handles the first cooperative processing and the second cooperative processing (the Examiner notes the foregoing is the same subject matter recited in claim 6, and as such, refers Applicant to its corresponding rejection of claim 6), transmit a sixth signal requesting negotiation relating to the first cooperative processing and the second cooperative processing, to the first base station, and determine whether or not negotiation with the first base station is possible, on the basis of a seventh signal responding to the sixth signal (Verma: paras: [0104], [0108], and [0130] —A scheduling AP1 can solicit feedback from a scheduled AP2, which can indicate its participation intention and preferred bandwidth resources —AP1 can then utilize this feedback as part of a negotiated TXOP resource allocation process for AP2 —the DCF also allows APs to contend for the same TXOP resources, until one becomes owner)
With respect to claim 8, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 8 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 8 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Verma in view of Kneckt, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of a base station (Verma: para. [0096]; and BS/AP 602 with Memory 640 of Fig. 6A). As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Verma in view of Kneckt, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Kneckt, in further view of US PG Pub 2015/0359008 A1, Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
With Respect to Claim 6, Verma in view of Kneckt teaches:
The base station according to claim 4, wherein the wireless signal processing unit is configured to transmit, to the first base station, an a HARQ signaling indication with a positive ACK for cooperative processing success (Verma: paras. [0158]; and AP2 ACK responses of Fig. 12).
However, Verma in view of Kneckt does not explicitly teach:
transmitting a signal including information indicating whether or not the second base station handles the first and second cooperative processing.
Wang does teach:
transmitting a signal including information indicating whether or not the second base station handles a first and a second cooperative processing (paras. [0072], [0184], and [0193]; and block 1802 of Fig. 18 —a cooperating/scheduled AP, i.e., AP2, can indicate success/failure to a scheduling AP, i.e., AP1, for any number of TXOP resource assignments via any number of signals).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verma in view of Kneckt’s positive signaling for TXOP signaling with the success/failure indication to a scheduling AP, i.e., AP1, from a cooperating AP, i.e., AP2, for any number of TXOP resource assignments/signaling, as taught by Wang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve feedback response information for resource signaling assignments between cooperating APs, as recognized by Wang (paras. [0072], [0184], and [0193]; and block 1802 of Fig. 18).
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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 A. Schlack/
Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418