DETAILED ACTION
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 December 22, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-13 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al. (US 20210136679 A1) in view of Mueck et al. (US 20230007483 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Verma et al. teaches a method of coordinating communications in a wireless network comprising a set of access points, APs, the method comprising at first AP of the wireless network (Paragraph 75, 76, 87, These passages teach a method performed at a first AP (TXOP owner) coordinating communications among multiple APs in a wireless network): then, gaining a transmission opportunity, TXOP and sharing resources during the TXOP (Paragraph 76, 77, 99, These passages teach the first AP winning contention to gain a TXOP and sharing time and frequency resources of that TXOP with other APs), wherein the first AP is configured to allocate resources to second APs of the formed group within the TXOP (Paragraph 76, 91, 94, 115, These passages collectively show the first AP (TXOP owner) granting, scheduling, and indicating specific time and frequency resources of the TXOP to selected second APs for their use during the TXOP, thereby allocating TXOP resources to the second APs).
Verma et al. does not explicitly teach forming, from the set of APs, a group of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not.
However, Mueck et al. teaches forming, from the set of APs, a group of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not (Paragraph 365, 417, 451, 459, These passages teach that devices (REs/AP-equivalents) exchange capability and authorization information (e.g., certificates, equipment classification, security channel eligibility), determine whether resource-sharing functions are authorized/enabled, and then establish associations and manage shared radio resources among selected equipment, thereby forming a functional group based on shared-resource capability and enablement status).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide forming, from the set of APs, a group of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not as taught by Mueck et al. in the system of Verma et al., so that it would ensure that only APs capable of and authorized for shared-resource operation participate in coordinated TXOP resource allocation, thereby improving reliability, interoperability, and efficient use of shared wireless resources.
Regarding claim 2, Verma et al. teaches the first AP is a coordinator AP of the communications and the second APs are coordinated Aps (Paragraph 76, 77, 81, 82, 87, 91, 105, The passage teaches that a first AP (the TXOP owner) acts as the coordinator AP by obtaining and allocating transmission opportunities, while other APs (AP2, AP3, AP4) act as coordinated APs by requesting participation, being selected, and then transmitting or receiving under the first AP’s coordination).
Regarding claim 3, Verma et al. teaches the resources are one or a combination of time resources, space resources and frequency resources (Paragraph 27, 84, 94, 98, The passage explicitly discloses that the shared resources include time resources (TXOP duration, slot/symbol times), frequency resources (channels, subchannels, RUs), and spatial resources (SRMA spatial reuse), thus teaching resources as one or a combination of time, space, and frequency resources).
Regarding claim 7, Verma et al. teaches a coordinator access point, AP, in a wireless network comprising a set of APs (Paragraph 29, 81, These passages disclose multiple APs within the same wireless network, establishing a set of APs including a coordinator AP), the coordinator AP being configured to… wherein the coordinator AP is further configured to gain a transmission opportunity, TXOP (Paragraph 52, 76, These passages disclose that an AP contends for and gains a TXOP, functioning as the TXOP owner) and to allocate resources to coordinated APs of the group within the TXOP (Paragraph 76, 91, 94–95, These passages disclose the coordinator AP allocating time and frequency resources within the TXOP to selected coordinated APs), wherein the group is formed before the gaining of the TXOP (Paragraph 29, 81, These passages indicate the existence and awareness of a set of neighboring APs prior to obtaining the TXOP, establishing the group context before the TXOP is gained).
Verma et al. does not explicitly teach form, from the set of APs, a group of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not.
However, Mueck et al. teaches form, from the set of APs, a group of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not (Paragraph 365, 417, 451, 459, These passages teach that devices (REs/AP-equivalents) exchange capability and authorization information (e.g., certificates, equipment classification, security channel eligibility), determine whether resource-sharing functions are authorized/enabled, and then establish associations and manage shared radio resources among selected equipment, thereby forming a functional group based on shared-resource capability and enablement status).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide form, from the set of APs, a group of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not as taught by Mueck et al. in the system of Verma et al., so that it would ensure that only APs capable of and authorized for shared-resource operation participate in coordinated TXOP resource allocation, thereby improving reliability, interoperability, and efficient use of shared wireless resources.
Regarding claim 8, Verma et al. teaches a coordinated access point, AP, in a wireless network comprising a group of APs sharing resources during a transmission opportunity, TXOP, gained by a coordinator AP of the group (Paragraph 73, 77, 87, These passages explicitly disclose a coordinator AP that gains a TXOP and forms a group of selected APs that share the TXOP resources during that transmission opportunity), the coordinated AP is configured to use resources shared by the coordinator AP within the TXOP (Paragraph 76, 91, 99, 105, 109, These passages show that a coordinated AP receives an allocation from the TXOP owner and actively transmits/receives using the shared TXOP time and frequency resources), wherein the group is formed before the gaining of the TXOP by the coordinator AP (Paragraph 29, 81, These passages indicate the existence and awareness of a set of neighboring APs prior to obtaining the TXOP, establishing the group context before the TXOP is gained).
Verma et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the group is formed from a set of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status indicating that the APs of their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not.
However, Mueck et al. teaches wherein the group is formed from a set of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status indicating that the APs of their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not (Paragraph 365, 417, 451, 459, These passages teach that devices (REs/AP-equivalents) exchange capability and authorization information (e.g., certificates, equipment classification, security channel eligibility), determine whether resource-sharing functions are authorized/enabled, and then establish associations and manage shared radio resources among selected equipment, thereby forming a functional group based on shared-resource capability and enablement status).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the group is formed from a set of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status indicating that the APs of their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not as taught by Mueck in the system of Verma et al., so that it would ensure that only APs authorized and technically capable of sharing TXOP resources are included in the coordinated group, thereby improving reliability, interoperability, and efficient shared resource utilization within the TXOP.
Regarding claim 9, Verma et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program comprising instructions adapted for the carrying out of each of the steps of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is executed on a computer (Paragraph 70, 125, 136, The passage teaches storing non-transitory software instructions in memory that, when executed by a processor, perform the described wireless communication steps).
Regarding claim 10, Verma et al. teaches the resources are one or a combination of time resources, space resources and frequency resources (Paragraph 27, 84, 94, 98, The passage explicitly discloses that the shared resources include time resources (TXOP duration, slot/symbol times), frequency resources (channels, subchannels, RUs), and spatial resources (SRMA spatial reuse), thus teaching resources as one or a combination of time, space, and frequency resources).
Regarding claim 11, Verma et al. teaches the first AP is a coordinator AP of the communications and the second APs are coordinated Aps (Paragraph 76. 77. 87. 91, 99, 109, 121, The passages describe that the first AP (TXOP owner/AP1) coordinates communications by selecting other APs (AP2, AP3, AP4), allocating them resources, synchronizing them, and controlling their transmit power, making AP1 the coordinator AP and the others the coordinated APs).
Regarding claim 12, Verma et al. teaches the resources are one or a combination of time resources, space resources and frequency resources (Paragraph 27, 84, 94, 98, The passage explicitly discloses that the shared resources include time resources (TXOP duration, slot/symbol times), frequency resources (channels, subchannels, RUs), and spatial resources (SRMA spatial reuse), thus teaching resources as one or a combination of time, space, and frequency resources).
Regarding claim 13, Verma et al. teaches the resources are one or a combination of time resources, space resources and frequency resources (Paragraph 27, 84, 94, 98, The passage explicitly discloses that the shared resources include time resources (TXOP duration, slot/symbol times), frequency resources (channels, subchannels, RUs), and spatial resources (SRMA spatial reuse), thus teaching resources as one or a combination of time, space, and frequency resources).
Allowable Subject Matter
Some concepts to add to the independent claims so they could possibly be allowable would be: specifying that the first AP acts as a coordinator AP that manages collaboration among neighboring APs operating on the same selected channel; defining that the shared resources comprise one or a combination of time, frequency, and spatial (space) resources; clarifying that the coordinator AP gains medium access rights on a given channel for the TXOP and shares portions of that TXOP with coordinated APs to prevent inter-AP interference; reciting that coordinated APs schedule downlink and/or uplink transmissions for their associated non-AP stations within the constraints of the resources allocated by the coordinator AP; incorporating the use of a frame exchanged between APs of different Basic Service Sets (BSSs) that includes an enablement field indicating whether the resource sharing and/or allocation function is enabled; specifying that the enablement field indicates whether the AP supports allocating and/or sharing resources gained during the TXOP; and indicating that the frame used to signal such enablement status is a management frame exchanged between APs to facilitate formation of the collaborative group.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Da Silva et al. (US 20220116784 A1)
Cohn et al. (US 20220201541 A1)
Zhu et al. (US 12425914 B2)
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 ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464