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 Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed 2/12/2026.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-31 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11-13 of the remarks, in regard to the independent claims, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson et al. US 20240008080 (hereinafter “Pettersson”) in view of Nunez et al. “TXOP sharing with Coordinated Spatial Reuse in Multi-AP Cooperative IEEE 802.11be WLANs” (hereinafter “Nunez”)
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
The sharing AP and multiple shared APs transmit during the coordinated slot 1, which does not teach or suggest "the second portion of the TXOP is allocated for a single wireless AP, the single wireless AP being the second wireless AP from which the first control message is received"
MAP TFs of Nunez are transmitted by the sharing AP in order to share a temporal slot with shared APs and indicate configuration parameters to be used by the shared APs for transmission via the temporal slot. Thus, the first MAP TF of Nunez cannot be relied upon to teach or suggest "a first control message…indicating scheduling information for the second wireless AP to transmit or receive packets during a second portion of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) that precedes a first portion of the TXOP".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), FIG. 1 shows that the number of APs can be "M-1" which means there can only be one wireless AP that shares the TXOP with the "sharing AP" depending on the value of M. Nunez also mentions that "the Sharing AP sends a MAP trigger frame…to one or more APs" and "when a coordinated slot is allocated to a single AP…" which implies that only one "shared AP" can exist.
Regarding (2), as mentioned by Nunez, MAP TF is used to allocate coordinated slots (where coordinated slot 1 precedes the following coordinated slot as shown in FIG. 1) for one or more shared APs which teaches "a first control message…indicating scheduling information for the second wireless AP to transmit or receive packets during a second portion of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) that precedes a first portion of the TXOP".
On page 13 of the remarks, in regard to the dependent claims, the Applicant states that the claims are allowable at least due to the deficiencies of the ground of rejection applied to the independent claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner kindly refer the Applicant to the reasoning pertaining to the independent claims, detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14-17, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson et al. US 20240008080 (hereinafter “Pettersson”) in view of Nunez et al. “TXOP sharing with Coordinated Spatial Reuse in Multi-AP Cooperative IEEE 802.11be WLANs” (hereinafter “Nunez”)
As to claim 1 and 17 (claim 17 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 1):
Pettersson discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless access point (AP), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: (“According to a further embodiment, an AP for a wireless communication system is provided. The AP comprises at least one processor and a memory. The memory contains instructions executable by said at least one processor, whereby the AP is operative to operate on a primary bandwidth part of a medium”, Pettersson [0018])
the first wireless AP operating on a first primary 20 MHz channel in a first bandwidth that comprises a first frequency portion that is overlapping in frequency with the second bandwidth, wherein the second primary 20 MHz channel is the same as the first primary 20 MHz channel; (“The example of FIG. 9 assumes that the sharing of a TXOP is coordinated by signaling as illustrated in FIG. 4 and that multiple channels, e.g., each having a bandwidth of 20 MHz, are available in the first band and the second band. In this example, a first channel (Ch1) is provided in the first band (1) and constitutes a common primary channel of AP1 and AP3. In the second band, a set of second channels (Ch2, Ch3, Ch4, Ch5) forms the primary bandwidth part of AP1, a set of third channels (Ch5, Ch6, Ch7, Ch8) forms the primary bandwidth part of AP2, and a set of fourth channels (Ch9, Ch10, Ch11, Ch12) forms the primary bandwidth part of AP3.”, Pettersson [0082]) (“In the example of FIG. 9, AP1 and AP2, share a common primary channel in the first band, namely the channel denoted by Ch5. This channel is part of an overlap of the primary bandwidth part of AP1 and the primary bandwidth part of AP2 and constitutes a common primary channel of AP1 and AP2. As explained in the following, the common primary channel AP1 and AP2 and the common primary channel of AP1 and AP3 are used as control channels for coordinating the sharing of the TXOP.”, Pettersson [0083])
Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
receive, from a second wireless AP operating on a second primary 20 MHz channel in a second bandwidth, a first control message prior to receiving a second control message,
the first control message indicating second scheduling information for the second wireless AP to transmit or receive packets during a second portion of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) that precedes a first portion of the TXOP,
wherein the second portion of the TXOP is allocated for a single wireless AP, the single wireless AP being the second wireless AP;
receive, from the second wireless AP and after receiving the first control message, the second control message indicating first scheduling information for at least the first wireless AP to transmit or receive packets during the TXOP,
and transmit one or more packets via at least the first frequency portion during at least the first portion of the TXOP granted to the first wireless AP by the first scheduling information.
However, Nunez further teaches sending control messages to APs to coordinate data transmission within TXOP which includes:
receive, from a second wireless AP operating on a second primary a first control message prior to receiving a second control message, (FIG. 1 shows “Sharing AP” sending first “MAP-TF” which allocates next coordinated slot for shared APs. This is done before the second “MAP-TF”, Nunez) (“After the setup, the Sharing AP grants temporal slots, to which we refer as coordinated slots, to the other APs in the coordination group. To do that, the Sharing AP sends a MAP trigger frame (MAP-TF) to allocate the next coordinated slot (i.e., that corresponds to the duration of a transmission) to one or more APs. This frame is also useful for synchronization purposes and it contains a set of configuration parameters, such as maximum physical layer convergence procedure (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU) length, coordinated slot duration, total bandwidth, modulation and coding scheme (MCS), and transmission power, that the Shared APs will use in the upcoming transmission.”, Nunez [3A. Transmission Coordination]) (“Fig. 2 from Section IV, we have designated AP1 as the Sharing AP, and all APs are deployed at the center of each 6×6 meters room and use the same 80 MHz channel.”, Nunez [VI. Results]) (Examiner’s Note: as indicated above, Pettersson teaches operating the APs in overlapping 20MHz channels)
the first control message indicating second scheduling information for the second wireless AP to transmit or receive packets during a second portion of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) that precedes a first portion of the TXOP,(FIG. 1 shows “Sharing AP” sending first “MAP-TF” which allocate next coordinated slot for shared APs. This is done before the second “MAP-TF”, Nunez) (“After the setup, the Sharing AP grants temporal slots, to which we refer as coordinated slots, to the other APs in the coordination group. To do that, the Sharing AP sends a MAP trigger frame (MAP-TF) to allocate the next coordinated slot (i.e., that corresponds to the duration of a transmission) to one or more APs. This frame is also useful for synchronization purposes and it contains a set of configuration parameters, such as maximum physical layer convergence procedure (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU) length, coordinated slot duration, total bandwidth, modulation and coding scheme (MCS), and transmission power, that the Shared APs will use in the upcoming transmission.”, Nunez [3A. Transmission Coordination])
wherein the second portion of the TXOP is allocated for a single wireless AP, the single wireless AP being the second wireless AP; (FIG. 1 shows that the number of APs can be "M-1" which means there can only be one wireless AP that shares the TXOP with the "sharing AP" depending on the value of M, Nunez) (“the Sharing AP sends a MAP trigger frame…to one or more APs”, Nunez [A. Transmission coordination]) (“when a coordinated slot is allocated to a single AP..”, Nunez [A. Transmission coordination])
receive, from the second wireless AP and after receiving the first control message, the second control message indicating first scheduling information for at least the first wireless AP to transmit or receive packets during the TXOP, (FIG. 1 shows “Sharing AP” sending second “MAP-TF” which allocates coordinated slot for shared APs after slot 1. This is done after the first “MAP-TF”, Nunez)
and transmit one or more packets via at least the first frequency portion during at least the first portion of the TXOP granted to the first wireless AP by the first scheduling information. (FIG. 1 shows APs transmitting data during “coordinated slot 1” of TXOP scheduled through “MAP-TF”, Nunez)
Pettersson and Nunez are analogous because they pertain to shared TXOP coordination.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sending control messages to APs to coordinate data transmission within TXOP as described in Nunez into Pettersson. By modifying the method to include sending control messages to APs to coordinate data transmission within TXOP as taught by Chun, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]) and improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]) are achieved.
As to claim 14:
Pettersson discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first wireless AP uses a first primary subchannel in the first bandwidth, the second wireless AP uses a second primary subchannel in the second bandwidth, and the first primary subchannel is different in frequency than the second primary subchannel. (“FIG. 8 further illustrates procedures underlying the scenario of FIG. 7, assuming that the sharing of the TXOP is coordinated by signaling as illustrated in FIG. 4 and that multiple channels, e.g., each having a bandwidth of 20 MHz, are available in the first band and the second band. In this example, a first channel (Ch1) is provided in the first band (1) and forms the common primary channel of AP1 and AP2. A set of second channels (Ch2, Ch3, Ch4, Ch5) forms the primary bandwidth part of AP1. A set of third channels (Ch6, Ch7, Ch8, Ch9) forms the primary bandwidth part of AP2. In FIG. 8, open boxes indicate transmissions by AP1, and dark shaded boxes indicate transmissions by AP2.”, Pettersson [0071])
As to claim 15:
Pettersson discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first wireless AP uses a first primary subchannel in the first bandwidth, the second wireless AP uses a second primary subchannel in the second bandwidth, and the first primary subchannel is a same frequency as the second primary subchannel. (“In the example of FIG. 9, AP1 and AP2, share a common primary channel in the first band, namely the channel denoted by Ch5. This channel is part of an overlap of the primary bandwidth part of AP1 and the primary bandwidth part of AP2 and constitutes a common primary channel of AP1 and AP2. As explained in the following, the common primary channel AP1 and AP2 and the common primary channel of AP1 and AP3 are used as control channels for coordinating the sharing of the TXOP.”, Pettersson [0083])
As to claim 16 and 30 (claim 30 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 16):
Pettersson discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first wireless AP is of a first basic service set (BSS) and the second wireless AP is of a second BSS. (“FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary wireless communication system according to an embodiment. In the illustrated example, the wireless communication system includes multiple access points (APs) 10, in the illustrated example referred to as AP1, AP2, AP3, AP4, and multiple stations (STAs) 11, in the illustrated example referred to as STA11, STA21, STA22, STA31, STA32, and STA41. The station STA11 is served by AP1 (in a first BSS denoted as BSS1), the stations STA21 and STA22 are served by AP2 (in a second BSS denoted as BSS2). The stations STA31 and STA32 are served by AP3 (in a third BSS denoted as BSS3). The station STA41 is served by AP4 (in a fourth BSS denoted as BSS4).”, Pettersson [0043])
As to claim 31:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform, during the TXOP, a channel assessment associated with at least a second frequency portion of the first bandwidth, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted in accordance with the channel assessment, wherein the first bandwidth comprises the second frequency portion that is different in frequency from the second bandwidth. (“In the example of FIG. 5, AP1 successfully performs a CCA procedure in its primary bandwidth part, reserves a TXOP, and initiates sharing of the TXOP. For this purpose, AP1 performs control signaling (CTRL) for coordinating the sharing of the TXOP. This control signaling may involve transmission of the above-mentioned CTI message and/or CTAS message. AP1 replicates the control signaling over the entire primary bandwidth of AP1, thus also in the part which is common with AP2. As mentioned above, the control signaling for coordinating the sharing of the TXOP, e.g., the CTI message, can also indicate the reservation of the TXOP by AP1. Due to the scanning of the primary bandwidth part of AP1, AP2 detects that AP1 has reserved the TXOP and is willing to share it, e.g., based on the CTI message transmitted by AP1. In the example of FIG. 5, it is assumed that AP2 decides to participate in the sharing of the TXOP and sends a corresponding response to AP1. For example, AP2 may send a CTR message in the primary bandwidth part which is common with AP1, so that AP1 can detect the CTR message from AP2. To participate in the sharing of the TXOP for transmission of data to its associated STAs, AP2 then switches to the primary bandwidth part of AP2, where the TXOP was reserved, and also instructs its associated STAs to perform corresponding channel switching. At the same time, AP2 may continue to contend for access to its own primary bandwidth, by performing CCA procedure in its primary bandwidth.”, Pettersson [0060]) (FIG. 5 – FIG. 10, Pettersson)
Claim(s) 3-8, 11, 19-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Nunez, as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Chun et al. US 20240283587 (hereinafter “Chun”)
As to claim 3 and 19 (claim 19 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 3):
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: detect the first frequency portion is occupied by a transmission from the second wireless AP during the second portion of the TXOP; and perform a backoff countdown of a backoff procedure for the first frequency portion during the second portion of the TXOP, wherein the channel assessment associated with a second frequency portion is performed in the first portion of the TXOP following completion of the backoff procedure.
However, Chun further teaches performing CCA after backoff procedure which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: detect the first frequency portion is occupied by a transmission from the second wireless AP during the second portion of the TXOP; and perform a backoff countdown of a backoff procedure for the first frequency portion during the second portion of the TXOP, wherein a channel assessment associated with a second frequency portion is performed in the first portion of the TXOP following completion of the backoff procedure. (“According to this type of access mechanism, the AP and/or STA may perform Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) sensing a radio channel or medium during a predetermined time interval (e.g., DCF Inter-Frame Space (DIFS)), prior to starting transmission. As a result of the sensing, if it is determined that the medium is in an idle state, frame transmission is started through the corresponding medium. On the other hand, if it is detected that the medium is occupied or busy, the corresponding AP and/or STA does not start its own transmission and may set a delay period for medium access (e.g., a random backoff period) and attempt frame transmission after waiting.”, Chun [0077])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Chun are analogous because they both pertain to the coordination between multiple APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing CCA after backoff procedure as described in Chun into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include performing CCA after backoff procedure as taught by Chun, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]), and improved efficiency (Chun [0003]) are achieved.
As to claim 4 and 20 (claim 20 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 4):
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: pause the backoff countdown in response to detecting a transmission from a wireless device.
However, Chun further teaches pausing the backoff counter which includes:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: pause the backoff countdown in response to detecting a transmission from a wireless device. (“When the random backoff process starts, the STA continuously monitors the medium while counting down the backoff slots according to the determined backoff count value. When the medium is monitored for occupancy, it stops counting down and waits, and resumes the rest of the countdown when the medium becomes idle.”, Chun [0080])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Chun are analogous because they both pertain to the coordination between multiple APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include pausing the backoff counter as described in Chun into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include pausing the backoff counter as taught by Chun, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]), and improved efficiency (Chun [0003]) are achieved.
As to claim 5 and 21 (claim 21 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 5):
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform, during the TXOP, the channel assessment associated with the first frequency portion in the first portion of the TXOP following completion of the backoff procedure.
However, Chun further teaches performing CCA after backoff procedure which includes:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform, during the TXOP, the channel assessment associated with the first frequency portion in the first portion of the TXOP following completion of the backoff procedure. (“According to this type of access mechanism, the AP and/or STA may perform Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) sensing a radio channel or medium during a predetermined time interval (e.g., DCF Inter-Frame Space (DIFS)), prior to starting transmission. As a result of the sensing, if it is determined that the medium is in an idle state, frame transmission is started through the corresponding medium. On the other hand, if it is detected that the medium is occupied or busy, the corresponding AP and/or STA does not start its own transmission and may set a delay period for medium access (e.g., a random backoff period) and attempt frame transmission after waiting.”, Chun [0077])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Chun are analogous because they both pertain to the coordination between multiple APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing CCA after backoff procedure as described in Chun into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include performing CCA after backoff procedure as taught by Chun, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]), and improved efficiency (Chun [0003]) are achieved.
As to claim 6 and 22 (claim 22 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 6):
Pettersson discloses:
(“In the example of FIG. 9, AP1 successfully performs a CCA procedure in its primary bandwidth part, i.e., on the set of second channels, reserves a TXOP on the set of second channels, and initiates sharing of the TXOP. As can be seen from FIG. 9, for initiating the sharing of the TXOP AP1 sends a CTI message. The CTI message is replicated on the common primary channel of AP1 and AP3 in the first band and on the second channels, i.e., on each channel of the primary bandwidth part of AP1, which also includes the common primary channel of AP1 and AP2, i.e., the channel denoted by Ch5. Further, AP1 also sends the CTI message on the common primary channel of AP1 and AP3 in the first band, i.e., on the channel denoted by Ch1.”, Pettersson [0085])
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform a backoff countdown of a backoff procedure in the second frequency portion during the second portion of the TXOP, wherein the channel assessment associated with the second frequency portion is performed in the first portion of the TXOP following completion of the backoff procedure;
However, Chun further teaches performing CCA after backoff procedure which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform a backoff countdown of a backoff procedure in the second frequency portion during the second portion of the TXOP, (“When the random backoff process starts, the STA continuously monitors the medium while counting down the backoff slots according to the determined backoff count value. When the medium is monitored for occupancy, it stops counting down and waits, and resumes the rest of the countdown when the medium becomes idle.”, Chun [0080]) wherein the channel assessment associated with the second frequency portion is performed in the first portion of the TXOP following completion of the backoff procedure; (“According to this type of access mechanism, the AP and/or STA may perform Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) sensing a radio channel or medium during a predetermined time interval (e.g., DCF Inter-Frame Space (DIFS)), prior to starting transmission. As a result of the sensing, if it is determined that the medium is in an idle state, frame transmission is started through the corresponding medium. On the other hand, if it is detected that the medium is occupied or busy, the corresponding AP and/or STA does not start its own transmission and may set a delay period for medium access (e.g., a random backoff period) and attempt frame transmission after waiting.”, Chun [0077])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Chun are analogous because they both pertain to the coordination between multiple APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing CCA after backoff procedure as described in Chun into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include performing CCA after backoff procedure as taught by Chun, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction])¸ and improved efficiency (Chun [0003]) are achieved.
As to claim 7 and 23 (claim 23 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 7):
Pettersson discloses:
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: tune a radio of the first wireless AP to at least one subchannel of the first portion of the first bandwidth to monitor for the second control message indicating the scheduling information; and tune the radio of the first wireless AP to at least one subchannel of the second portion of the first bandwidth in response to receiving the scheduling information. (“In the example of FIG. 10, it is assumed that AP1 gains access to channel Ch2, reserves a TXOP on channel Ch2, and decides to share it on channel Ch1 and Ch2, provided that channel Ch1 is available in accordance with the principles of asynchronous, synchronous, or semi-synchronous channel access. AP2 then indicates on channel Ch2 that it wants to participate in the sharing of the TXOP, and AP3 indicates on channel Ch1 that it wants to participate in the sharing of the TXOP. Details of the sharing process can be as explained in the example of FIG. 9. In the example of FIG. 10, it should be noted that after receiving the CTAS message on channel Ch1, AP3 may need to retune its antennas, so that it can then do full scanning on the channel Ch2 while keeping at least one of its radio processing chains tuned to channel Ch3.”, Pettersson [0096]) (“In the example of FIG. 1C, the TXOP owner, i.e., AP1, informs the participating APs, i.e., AP2, AP3, AP3, about their allocated resources and the TX start time. This is accomplished by sending a CTAS (CAP TXOP AP Schedule) message and the participating APs inform their associated STAs about their respectively allocated resources according to local scheduling within the BSS of the participating AP.”, Pettersson [0009])
As to claim 8 and 24 (claim 24 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 8):
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform a channel assessment, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform the channel assessment associated with a second frequency portion during an inter-frame spacing window of the first portion of the TXOP.
However, Chun further teaches performing CCA during an inter-frame spacing window which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform a channel assessment, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform the channel assessment associated with a second frequency portion during an inter-frame spacing window of the first portion of the TXOP. (“According to this type of access mechanism, the AP and/or STA may perform Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) sensing a radio channel or medium during a predetermined time interval (e.g., DCF Inter-Frame Space (DIFS)), prior to starting transmission. As a result of the sensing, if it is determined that the medium is in an idle state, frame transmission is started through the corresponding medium. On the other hand, if it is detected that the medium is occupied or busy, the corresponding AP and/or STA does not start its own transmission and may set a delay period for medium access (e.g., a random backoff period) and attempt frame transmission after waiting.”, Chun [0077])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Chun are analogous because they both pertain to the coordination between multiple APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing CCA during an inter-frame spacing window as described in Chun into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include performing CCA during an inter-frame spacing window as taught by Chun, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction])¸ and improved efficiency (Chun [0003]) are achieved.
As to claim 11 and 27 (claim 27 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 11):
Pettersson discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to a second STA, an indication of a grant of a sub-portion of the first portion of the TXOP granted to the first wireless AP by the scheduling information, (“FIG. 1C illustrates further details of the second phase, again assuming a scenario with four APs, denoted as AP1, AP2, AP3, and AP4. In the example of FIG. 1C, the TXOP owner, i.e., AP1, informs the participating APs, i.e., AP2, AP3, AP3, about their allocated resources and the TX start time. This is accomplished by sending a CTAS (CAP TXOP AP Schedule) message and the participating APs inform their associated STAs about their respectively allocated resources according to local scheduling within the BSS of the participating AP. This is accomplished by sending a CTLS (CAP TXOP Local Schedule) message.”, Pettersson [0009])
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second STA performs a channel assessment prior to transmitting during the sub-portion.
However, Chun further teaches STA performing CCA which includes:
wherein the second STA performs a channel assessment prior to transmitting during the sub-portion. (“According to this type of access mechanism, the AP and/or STA may perform Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) sensing a radio channel or medium during a predetermined time interval (e.g., DCF Inter-Frame Space (DIFS)), prior to starting transmission.”, Chun [0077])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Chun are analogous because they both pertain to the coordination between multiple APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include STA performing CCA as described in Chun into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include STA performing CCA as taught by Chun, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]), and improved efficiency (Chun [0003]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Nunez, as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Chu et al. US 20190182863 (hereinafter “Chu”)
As to claim 12 and 28 (claim 28 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 12):
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform a channel assessment associated with the first frequency portion of the first bandwidth using a first radio of the first wireless AP, wherein the channel assessment associated with a second frequency portion of the first bandwidth is performing using a second radio of the first wireless AP.
However, Chu further teaches performing CCA on primary and secondary channel which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform the CCA associated with the first frequency portion of the first bandwidth using a first radio of the first wireless AP, wherein the CCA associated with the second frequency portion of the first bandwidth is performing using a second radio of the first wireless AP. (“In an example of step 302, the AP 101 performs a Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) to detect energy levels at select channels, as understood in the art. When the energy level is below a CCA threshold, then the channel is available (idle). For example, the AP 101 first senses the energy level of the primary channel(s) via the CCA, and then sense the secondary channel(s) before a backoff counter counts down to zero. The AP 101 can transmit on the particular channels that are available (idle). The AP 101 can transmit on the secondary channel(s) after the time unit PCF InterFrame Spacing (PIFS).”, Chu [0099])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Chu are analogous because they both pertain to AP operation.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing CCA on primary and secondary channel as described in Chu into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include performing CCA on primary and secondary channel as taught by Chu, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]), and improved operation (Chu [0090]) are achieved.
As to claim 13 and 29 (claim 29 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 13):
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the channel assessment associated with the second frequency portion of the first bandwidth is performed following completion of a backoff procedure associated with the second radio.
However, Chu further teaches performing CCA after backoff procedure on primary and secondary channel which includes:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the channel assessment associated with the second frequency portion of the first bandwidth is performed following completion of a backoff procedure associated with the second radio. (“In an example of step 302, the AP 101 performs a Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) to detect energy levels at select channels, as understood in the art. When the energy level is below a CCA threshold, then the channel is available (idle). For example, the AP 101 first senses the energy level of the primary channel(s) via the CCA, and then sense the secondary channel(s) before a backoff counter counts down to zero. The AP 101 can transmit on the particular channels that are available (idle). The AP 101 can transmit on the secondary channel(s) after the time unit PCF InterFrame Spacing (PIFS).”, Chu [0099])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Chu are analogous because they both pertain to AP operation.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing CCA after backoff procedure on primary and secondary channel as described in Chu into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include performing CCA after backoff procedure on primary and secondary channel as taught by Chu, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]), and improved operation (Chu [0090]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Nunez, as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Karaki et al. US 20170290059 (hereinafter “Karaki”)
As to claim 9 and 25 (claim 25 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 9):
The combination of Pettersson and Nunez as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform a channel assessment, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform the channel assessment associated with a second frequency portion during the first portion of the TXOP regardless of whether a backoff countdown for the first wireless AP has completed.
However, Karaki further teaches performing CCA regardless of backoff counter state which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform a channel assessment, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform the channel assessment associated with a second frequency portion during the first portion of the TXOP regardless of whether a backoff countdown for the first wireless AP has completed. (“In another example, multiple carriers are designated as full random backoff channels, and the first SCell to complete its backoff procedure is designated as the SRBC and initiates the quick CCA check on all or some of the other channels, regardless of their backoff counter state.”, Karaki [0100])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Karaki are analogous because they both pertain to performing CCA.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing CCA regardless of backoff counter state as described in Karaki into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include performing CCA regardless of backoff counter state as taught by Karaki, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004]), improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]), and improved CCA operation (Karaki [0100]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Nunez, as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Atefi US 20210235486 (hereinafter “Atefi”)
As to claim 10 and 26 (claim 26 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 10):
The combination of Nunez and Pettersson as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code instructions arc further executable by the one or more proccessors to cause the apparatus to: select a length, a frequency or both, of the one or more packets to transmit to a first wireless station (STA) in accordance with a threshold count, a threshold duration, or both, for one or more packets to be received from the first wireless STA.
However, Atefi further teaches selecting a frequency in accordance with a threshold which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code instructions arc further executable by the one or more proccessors to cause the apparatus to: select a length, a frequency or both, of the one or more packets to transmit to a first wireless station (STA) in accordance with a threshold count, a threshold duration, or both, for one or more packets to be received from the first wireless STA. (“In some aspects, an apparatus (e.g., AP (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s)) and/or STA (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s))) may perform communication, determine to perform communication, select a mode of communication, indicate/communicate a capability to communicate, or begin/enable communication according to any one or more of such concerted communication(s) (as described herein) (e.g., (a), (b), and/or (c), as described herein) (e.g., instead of any other concerted communication (e.g., (a), (b), and/or (c), as described herein)) based at least in part on, according to, or in association with a link/channel/communication property/parameter/attribute/threshold/value/limit/characteristic (e.g., center frequency, frequency width, channel frequency, channel mask, frequency spectrum, frequency separation to another channel/link/communication, interference (e.g., from/to another channel/link/communication), link/channel/communication direction (e.g., uplink vs. downlink), virtual carrier sensing (e.g., NAV, physical/energy sensing/detection (e.g., a channel assessment), a communication mode setting, a duration/size/length of a packet/frame/signal/data-unit currently being or expected to be communicated, physical location of and/or separation of two or more antennas/transceivers/chains, a distance between a transmitting device (e.g., AP (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s)) and/or STA (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s))) and a receiving device (e.g., STA (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s)) and/o AP (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s))), and/or number (e.g., quantity) of active/enabled/disabled/disable-able/enable-able links/channels/communications) of that link/channel/communication and/or one or more other link(s)/channel(s)/communication(s).”, Atefi [0329])
Pettersson, Nunez, and Atefi are analogous because they both pertain to operating multiple APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include selecting a frequency in accordance with a threshold as described in Atefi into Pettersson as modified by Nunez. By modifying the method to include selecting a frequency in accordance with a threshold as taught by Atefi, the benefits of improved performance (Pettersson [0004] and Atefi [0384]) and improved TXOP coordination (Nunez [I. Introduction]) are achieved.
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 ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471