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 03/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response below:
In response to applicant argument, Das describes intra-TXOP scheduled transmissions without teaching or implying a CTS-based mechanism that explicitly initiates peer-to-peer data transmission between non-AP STAs (Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, see Das’s slide 4, bullet 4, intra-TXOP SP is a CTS frame similar to baseline MU-RTS behavior).
In response to applicant argument, moreover, Das fails to disclose the claimed coordinated sequence in which (1) peer-to-peer transmission between non-AP STAs occurs in an allocated portion of the TXOP based on the CTS response, and (2) the AP then transmits data to another non-AP STA during the remaining portion of the same TXOP, including cases where that another non-AP STA is hidden from one or more of the peer STAs. The combination of these features, as now recited in amended claim 8 (or new claim 16), is neither taught nor suggested by Das, alone or in combination with any secondary reference (Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, Das discloses peer to peer transmission between non-APs (see slide 5) and a new prior art Amini et al. (US 2013/0077610 A1) disclose unused TXOP is used for transmitting data by another station, see rejection below).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (IEEE802.11-20/1312r2, 10/30/2020, “AP assisted SU PPDU TX for 11 be R1”, IDS provided by applicant, hereinafter “Das”) in view of Amini et al (US 2013/0077610 A1, hereinafter “Amini”).
Regarding claim 8, Das discloses a method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the method comprising: receiving, by a first non-access point (non-AP) station (STA), a multi user-request to send (MU-RTS) Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) sharing (TXS) trigger frame from an access point (AP) (see slides 3-4, trigger MU-RTS frame), receiving, by the AP, a clear to send (CTS) frame from the non-AP STA (see slide 4, CTS frame); and wherein first data tis transmitted within an allocated time by the first non-AP STA to a second non-AP STA based on the CTS frame, the allocated being a portion of an obtained TXOP (see slide 5, transmission of P2P SU PPDU transmission during intra-TXOP SP), and wherein the MU-RTS TXS trigger frame includes information on the allocated time (see slide 4, intra-TXOP SP duration). Das discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein any data is not transmitted by the first non-AP to the second non-AP STA or to the AP during remaining period of the obtained TXOP and transmitting, by the AP, second data to a third non-AP STA during the remaining period of the obtained TXOP. However, Amini from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein any data is not transmitted by the first non-AP to the second non-AP STA or to the AP during remaining period of the obtained TXOP and transmitting, by the AP, second data to a third non-AP STA during the remaining period of the obtained TXOP (see para. 0178, unused portion of the SP for use by other STA’s). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Amini TXOP scheduling scheme into Das TXOP sharing scheme. The method can be implemented in a TXOP by an AP. The motivation of doing this is to use resources efficiently.
Regarding claim 16, Das discloses an access point (AP) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the AP comprising: a memory; a transceiver; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory and the transceiver, wherein processor is configured to: transmit a multi user-request to send (MU-RTS) Transmission Opportunity (TXOP)
sharing (TXS) trigger frame to a first non-access point (non-AP) station (STA (see slides 3-4, trigger MU-RTS frame)); and receive a clear to send (CTS) frame from the first non-AP STA (see slide 4, CTS frame), wherein first data is transmitted within an allocated time by the first non-AP STA to a second non-AP STA based on the CTS frame, the allocated time being a portion of an obtained TXOP (see slide 5, transmission of P2P SU PPDU transmission during intra-TXOP SP), and wherein the MU-RTS TXS trigger frame includes information on the allocated time (see slide 4, intra-TXOP SP duration), Das discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein any data is not transmitted by the first non-AP STA to the second non-AP STA or to the AP during a remaining period of the obtained TXOP; and transmit second data to a third non-AP STA during the remaining period of the obtained TXOP. However, Amini from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein any data is not transmitted by the first non-AP STA to the second non-AP STA or to the AP during a remaining period of the obtained TXOP; and transmit second data to a third non-AP STA during the remaining period of the obtained TXOP (see para. 0178, unused portion of the SP for use by other STA’s). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Amini TXOP scheduling scheme into Das TXOP sharing scheme. The method can be implemented in a TXOP by an AP. The motivation of doing this is to use resources efficiently.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Amini and further in view of Gopinath et al. (US 2006/0165073 A1, hereinafter “Gopinath”).
Regarding claim 12, Das and Amini disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the AP is a Soft AP, and wherein the second non-AP STA is a peer non-AP STA of the first non-AP STA. However, Gopinath from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the AP is a Soft AP (see para. 0004, Soft AP), and wherein the second non-AP STA is a peer non-AP STA of the first non-AP STA (see para. 0008, communicate peer to peer). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Gopinath soft AP and peer to peer scheme into Das and Amini transmission scheme. The method can be implemented in the system design. The motivation of doing this is to prioritized/restrict devices.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ANWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MOHAMMAD S. ANWAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MOHAMMAD S ANWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463