CTFR 18/049,172 CTFR 83553 DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to communications filed on March 3, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 21, 24, 29, 30, 42, and 62 have been amended. Claims 31-33 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 13-16, 21, 24-30, 42, 47, 48, 51, 53, 62, and 83-85 are pending in the application. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1, 8, 13, 15, 1 6, 21, 28, 42, 51, 53, 62, 84, and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (US 2022/0408355) in view of Verma et al. (US 2021/0136679). Regardin g Claim 1, Shafin teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a first access point (AP), comprising: one or more interfaces ( “The AP 101 includes multiple antennas 204a-204n, multiple RF transceivers 209a-209n, transmit (TX) processing circuitry 214, and receive (RX) processing circuitry 219” – See [0057]; The AP includes RF transceivers (one or more interfaces)) configured to: output, to a second AP, an indication of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for the first AP and information associated with a conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP ( “An AP that obtains a transmission opportunity (TXOP) is called the sharing AP while other APs in the coordinating set that participate in the actual transmission are called shared APs” – See [0005]; “When AP 103 has obtained a TXOP (and is thus a sharing AP) for transmitting to STA 114, it may announce its MAP coordination capability to neighboring coordinated APs, including AP 101, and indicate to them that it has obtained the TXOP. When AP 103 announces its MAP coordination capability, it includes the TWT agreement for Link-1—the victim link—to facilitate a negotiation procedure with the coordinated APs to avoid interference with the victim link. For example, AP 103 can share the TWT Parameter Set field of the victim link's TWT agreement (including Link-1's TWT SP) with the coordinated APs. Sharing the TWT Parameter Set field information of the victim link with the coordinated APs allows them to determine the time slots where interference management needs to be handled” – See [0073]; “The first AP next transmits, to the second AP, a MAP coordination announcement that includes (i) an indication that the first AP has obtained a TXOP and (ii) the parameters of the first TWT operation (step 1910)” – See [0125]; The first AP outputs, to a second AP, an indication that it has obtained a TXOP and is associated with sharing the TXOP between the first AP and second AP), wherein the information is associated with an interference measurement between a first communication link and a second communication link, wherein the first communication link is between the first AP and a first client device of the first AP and the second communication link is between the second AP and a second client device of the second AP ( “Beginning at step 1905, the first AP receives, from a first STA with which the first AP exchanges traffic in a first TWT SP based on parameters of a first TWT operation between the first AP and the first STA, an interference notification message that includes an indication that the first STA has detected interference with a traffic transmission from the first AP. The interference is caused by transmissions between a second STA and a second AP in the MAP coordinating set of AP” – See [0124]; The information is associated with an interference between a first communication link between the first AP/first STA and a second communication link between the second AP/second STA); and output, to the first client device, a message during the TXOP ( “In one embodiment, a first AP device is provided, comprising a transceiver, a back-haul interface, and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver and backhaul interface. The transceiver is configured to transmit traffic to a first STA during a TXOP in a first TWT SP based on parameters of a first TWT operation between the first AP and the first STA” – See [0011]; The first AP transmits data to the first STA during the TXOP). Shafin does not explicitly teach that the information indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power. However, Verma teaches that the information indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power ( “The method includes obtaining a transmission opportunity for wireless communication via a wireless channel. The method also includes selecting one or more other wireless access points to participate in the transmission opportunity. The method also includes determining a maximum transmit power permitted to be used by each of the one or more selected access points for transmissions during the transmission opportunity. The method additionally includes transmitting a message to the one or more selected access points that includes, for each of the selected access points: an indication of time and frequency resources of the transmission opportunity usable by the selected access point to transmit data to, or receive data from, one or more respective wireless stations associated with the access point during the transmission opportunity; and an indication of the maximum transmit power for the selected access point” – See [0006]; “the TXOP owner AP1 can determine the maximum TX power TX MAX for each one of the selected APs using Equation 5 based on the acceptable SIR for STA1, its own TX power TX AP1 , its measurement of the RX power RX AP1-STA of the CTS frame 712” – See [0090]; The AP sharing the TXOP outputs an indication of a maximum transmit power limit for a second AP in accordance with the measurements, wherein the second AP uses a transmit power less than the maximum transmit power when transmitting in the shared TXOP). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shafin such that the information indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power. Motivation for doing so would be to provide a situation where interference from the shared/second AP does not prevent the first client device from successfully decoding packets transmitted by the first AP (See Verma, [0073]). Regarding Claim 8, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Verma further teaches outputting, to the first client device, a frame that triggers a response frame from the first client device ( “For UL MU transmissions, an AP 102 can transmit a trigger frame to initiate and synchronize an UL MU-OFDMA or UL MU-MIMO transmission from multiple STAs 104 to the AP 102. Such trigger frames may thus enable multiple STAs 104 to send UL traffic to the AP 102 concurrently in time” – See [0056]). Regarding Claim 13, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Shafin further teaches that, to output the indication of the TXOP for the first AP and the information associated with the conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP, the one or more interfaces are configured to: output an indication of allocation information associated with the TXOP, wherein the allocation information indicates a respective time domain resource allocation, within the TXOP, for communication by a respective AP of a set of APs with which the TXOP is conditionally shared, wherein the set of APs with which the TXOP is conditionally shared includes the second AP ( “When AP 103 has obtained a TXOP (and is thus a sharing AP) for transmitting to STA 114, it may announce its MAP coordination capability to neighboring coordinated APs, including AP 101, and indicate to them that it has obtained the TXOP. When AP 103 announces its MAP coordination capability, it includes the TWT agreement for Link-1—the victim link—to facilitate a negotiation procedure with the coordinated APs to avoid interference with the victim link. For example, AP 103 can share the TWT Parameter Set field of the victim link's TWT agreement (including Link-1's TWT SP) with the coordinated APs. Sharing the TWT Parameter Set field information of the victim link with the coordinated APs allows them to determine the time slots where interference management needs to be handled” – See [0073]; The first AP outputs an announcement/indication of the first target wake time service period which indicates time slots/time domain resource allocations within the TXOP for communication by the first AP, wherein the first AP conditionally shares the TXOP with the second AP as shown above with respect to Claim 1). Regarding Claim 15, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Shafin further teaches that, to output the indication of the TXOP for the first AP, the one or more interfaces are configured to: output a frame that allocates the conditional sharing of the TXOP with the second AP, wherein the frame includes one or both of an indication of a communication schedule between the first AP and the first client device or padding, and wherein the communication schedule or the padding are associated with facilitating use of the TXOP at the second AP ( “When AP 103 has obtained a TXOP (and is thus a sharing AP) for transmitting to STA 114, it may announce its MAP coordination capability to neighboring coordinated APs, including AP 101, and indicate to them that it has obtained the TXOP. When AP 103 announces its MAP coordination capability, it includes the TWT agreement for Link-1—the victim link—to facilitate a negotiation procedure with the coordinated APs to avoid interference with the victim link. For example, AP 103 can share the TWT Parameter Set field of the victim link's TWT agreement (including Link-1's TWT SP) with the coordinated APs. Sharing the TWT Parameter Set field information of the victim link with the coordinated APs allows them to determine the time slots where interference management needs to be handled” – See [0073]; The first AP outputs, to the second AP, an announcement frame for conditional sharing of the TXOP, wherein the frame includes a first target wake time service period which indicates a communication schedule between the first AP and the first client device, wherein the communication schedule facilitates use of the TXOP by the second AP by enabling interference management to be performed). Regarding Claim 16, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the apparatus of Claim 15. Shafin further teaches that the one or more interfaces are further configured to: obtain, from the second AP, an indication that the second AP is unable to share the TXOP in accordance with the information associated with the conditional sharing of the TXOP ( “AP 101 may respond by declining to participate in MAP coordination with AP 103” – See [0077]; The first AP receives, from the second AP, an indication that the second AP declines/is unable to participate in the MAP coordination/sharing the TXOP). Regarding Claim 21, Shafin teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more interfaces ( “The AP 101 includes multiple antennas 204a-204n, multiple RF transceivers 209a-209n, transmit (TX) processing circuitry 214, and receive (RX) processing circuitry 219” – See [0057]; The AP includes RF transceivers (one or more interfaces)) configured to: obtain, from a first access point (AP) at a second AP, an indication of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for the first AP and information associated with a conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP ( “An AP that obtains a transmission opportunity (TXOP) is called the sharing AP while other APs in the coordinating set that participate in the actual transmission are called shared APs” – See [0005]; “When AP 103 has obtained a TXOP (and is thus a sharing AP) for transmitting to STA 114, it may announce its MAP coordination capability to neighboring coordinated APs, including AP 101, and indicate to them that it has obtained the TXOP. When AP 103 announces its MAP coordination capability, it includes the TWT agreement for Link-1—the victim link—to facilitate a negotiation procedure with the coordinated APs to avoid interference with the victim link. For example, AP 103 can share the TWT Parameter Set field of the victim link's TWT agreement (including Link-1's TWT SP) with the coordinated APs. Sharing the TWT Parameter Set field information of the victim link with the coordinated APs allows them to determine the time slots where interference management needs to be handled” – See [0073]; “The first AP next transmits, to the second AP, a MAP coordination announcement that includes (i) an indication that the first AP has obtained a TXOP and (ii) the parameters of the first TWT operation (step 1910)” – See [0125]; The second AP receives, from the first AP, an indication that the first AP has obtained a TXOP and is associated with sharing the TXOP between the first AP and second AP), wherein the information is associated with an interference measurement between a first communication link and a second communication link, wherein the first communication link is between the first AP and a first client device of the first AP and the second communication link is between the second AP and a second client device of the second AP ( “Beginning at step 1905, the first AP receives, from a first STA with which the first AP exchanges traffic in a first TWT SP based on parameters of a first TWT operation between the first AP and the first STA, an interference notification message that includes an indication that the first STA has detected interference with a traffic transmission from the first AP. The interference is caused by transmissions between a second STA and a second AP in the MAP coordinating set of AP” – See [0124]; The information is associated with an interference between a first communication link between the first AP/first STA and a second communication link between the second AP/second STA); and output, to the second client device, a message during the TXOP ( “In another embodiment, the MAP coordination response includes an indication that the second AP is capable of participating in MAP coordination and parameters of a second TWT operation between the second STA and the second AP. In this case, the parameters of the second TWT operation have been modified based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on the extent of overlap between a second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation” – See [0129]; “The transceiver is configured to transmit traffic to a second station (STA) in a second target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) based on parameters of a second TWT operation between the second AP and the second STA” – See [0012]; The second AP transmits, to the second STA (second client device), a message during the TXOP). Shafin does not explicitly teach that the information indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power. However, Verma teaches that the information indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power ( “The method includes obtaining a transmission opportunity for wireless communication via a wireless channel. The method also includes selecting one or more other wireless access points to participate in the transmission opportunity. The method also includes determining a maximum transmit power permitted to be used by each of the one or more selected access points for transmissions during the transmission opportunity. The method additionally includes transmitting a message to the one or more selected access points that includes, for each of the selected access points: an indication of time and frequency resources of the transmission opportunity usable by the selected access point to transmit data to, or receive data from, one or more respective wireless stations associated with the access point during the transmission opportunity; and an indication of the maximum transmit power for the selected access point” – See [0006]; “the TXOP owner AP1 can determine the maximum TX power TX MAX for each one of the selected APs using Equation 5 based on the acceptable SIR for STA1, its own TX power TX AP1 , its measurement of the RX power RX AP1-STA of the CTS frame 712” – See [0090]; The AP sharing the TXOP outputs an indication of a maximum transmit power limit for a second AP in accordance with the measurements, wherein the second AP uses a transmit power less than the maximum transmit power when transmitting in the shared TXOP). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shafin such that the information indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power for the same reasons as those given with respect to Claim 1. Regarding Claim 28, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the apparatus of Claim 21. Verma further teaches obtaining one or more frames from one or more client devices of the first AP, wherein the interference measurement is associated with a strongest receive power, at the second AP, of the one or more frames obtained from the one or more client devices of the first AP ( “the TXOP owner AP1 receives the CTS frame 712 from the STA1 and, in block 806, measures or otherwise determines a received power (RX power) of the CTS frame 712. In some implementations, the other APs, including AP2, AP3 and AP4, are further configured to measure the RX power of the CTS frame 712” – See [0080]; The interference measurement is associated with a strongest RX power at the second AP of the frame obtained from STA1 (client device of the first AP)). Claim 42 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1. Claim 51 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 28. Regarding Claim 53, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the method of Claim 51. Verma further teaches that transmitting the information associated with the conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP comprises: transmitting an indication of an uplink power backoff associated with the strongest receive power of the one or more frames, wherein the indication of the uplink power backoff indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP uses the uplink power backoff for uplink transmissions to the second AP ( “The method includes obtaining a transmission opportunity for wireless communication via a wireless channel. The method also includes selecting one or more other wireless access points to participate in the transmission opportunity. The method also includes determining a maximum transmit power permitted to be used by each of the one or more selected access points for transmissions during the transmission opportunity. The method additionally includes transmitting a message to the one or more selected access points that includes, for each of the selected access points: an indication of time and frequency resources of the transmission opportunity usable by the selected access point to transmit data to, or receive data from, one or more respective wireless stations associated with the access point during the transmission opportunity; and an indication of the maximum transmit power for the selected access point” – See [0006]; The access point transmits an indication of a power backoff/maximum transmit power such that sharing the TXOP is possible if the second access point backs off its transmit power to be less than the maximum transmit power). Claim 62 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 21. Regarding Claim 84, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the method of Claim 62. Shafin further teaches that a first basic service set (BSS) bandwidth of the first AP and a second BSS bandwidth of the second AP at least partially overlap, and wherein the second AP receives the information associated with the conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP via an overlapping portion of the first BSS bandwidth and the second BSS bandwidth ( “AP 101 and AP 103 operate on the same frequency band” – See [0071]). Regarding Claim 85, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the method of Claim 62. Shafin further teaches receiving, from the first AP, a frame associated with an overlapping target wake time (TWT) of the first AP and the second AP, wherein the frame indicates a set of coordinated spatial reuse (C-SR) parameters associated with the overlapping TWT, and wherein the set of C-SR parameters indicated by the frame are associated with the interference measurement ( “Beginning at step 1905, the first AP receives, from a first STA with which the first AP exchanges traffic in a first TWT SP based on parameters of a first TWT operation between the first AP and the first STA, an interference notification message that includes an indication that the first STA has detected interference with a traffic transmission from the first AP. The interference is caused by transmissions between a second STA and a second AP in the MAP coordinating set of APs” – See [0124]; “the parameters of the second TWT operation have been modified based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on the extent of overlap between a second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation” – See [0129]; The TWTs of the first and second APs overlap, wherein the MAP coordination frame indicates parameters for coordinated spatial reuse in association with the overlapping TWTs, and wherein the coordination frame is associated with an interference measurement) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4, 24-27, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (US 2022/0408355) in view of Verma et al. (US 2021/0136679) and further in view of Kanaya et al. (US 2024/0334250) . Regarding Claim 2, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Shafin and Verma do not explicitly teach that the one or more interfaces are further configured to: obtain, from the second AP, an indication of a schedule of measurement packets from the second AP; and output, to the first client device, an indication of one or more transmissions times of the measurement packets from the second AP, wherein the one or more transmission times are associated with the schedule, and wherein the interference measurement is associated with the measurement packets from the second AP. However, Kanaya teaches obtaining, from the second AP, an indication of a schedule of measurement packets from the second AP ( “In the example illustrated in FIG. 20, AP 2 (e.g., OBSS-AP for STA 1) may indicate, to AP 1, information on communication duration of AP 2 or the STA (e.g., STA 2 and STA 3) associated with AP 2, such as transmission timing (e.g., referred to as “Start Timing”) of a Beacon by AP 2 and uplink communication duration (e.g., referred to as “Measurement Duration”) for AP 2 following the Beacon, in the backhaul” – See [0098]; See also Fig. 20; AP 1 (first AP) obtains, from AP 2 (second AP), a beacon timing/measurement duration (schedule of measurement packets) from AP 2); and outputting, to the first client device, an indication of one or more transmissions times of the measurement packets from the second AP, wherein the one or more transmission times are associated with the schedule, and wherein the interference measurement is associated with the measurement packets from the second AP ( “AP 1 may indicate, to STA 1, the Multi-AP Measurement Request including information (identifier) identifying AP 2, information on a channel (e.g., primary channel) of AP 2, and/or information such as the Start Timing and the Measurement Duration, for example” – See [0098]; “STA 1 may measure reception power of a signal (e.g., Beacon) from AP 2 and obtain an identifier of an STA that possibly gives interference to STA 1” – See [0101]; AP1 transmits a multi-AP measurement request to STA 1 (first client device), wherein the multi-AP measurement request includes the transmission times of the beacons/measurement packets from AP 2 (second AP), wherein the beacons/measurement packets are associated with an interference measurement). It would have been obvious to tone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shafin to obtain, from the second AP, an indication of a schedule of measurement packets from the second AP; and output, to the first client device, an indication of one or more transmissions times of the measurement packets from the second AP, wherein the one or more transmission times are associated with the schedule, and wherein the interference measurement is associated with the measurement packets from the second AP. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the first client device to obtain an identifier of another station/client device that possibly gives interference to the first client device (See Kanaya, [0100] and [0101]). Regarding Claim 3, Shafin in view of Verma and Kanaya teaches the apparatus of Claim 2. Kanaya further teaches that the one or more interfaces are further configured to: output, to the first client device, a frame requesting link measurements associated with the measurement packets from the second AP ( “AP 1 may indicate, to STA 1, the Multi-AP Measurement Request including information (identifier) identifying AP 2, information on a channel (e.g., primary channel) of AP 2, and/or information such as the Start Timing and the Measurement Duration, for example” – See [0098]; AP 1 outputs a multi-AP measurement request frame that requests link measurements associated with AP 2 (second AP)); and obtain, from the first client device, the link measurements associated with the measurement packets from the second AP, wherein the interference measurement is associated with the link measurements ( “STA 1 may indicate, to AP 1, Multi-AP Measurement Report including information on at least one of reception power of AP 2 measured based on a Beacon, an STA (e.g., OBSS-STA-ID of STA 2) having the interference effect measured based on the uplink communication, and reception power of STA 2” – See [0105]; AP 1 obtains, from STA 1 (first client device), a multi-AP measurement report including the link measurements associated with the measurement packets from AP 2 (second AP)). Regarding Claim 4, Shafin in view of Verma and Kanaya teaches the apparatus of Claim 3. Verma further teaches outputting an indication of an upper limit transmit power of the second AP in accordance with the link measurements obtained from the first client device, wherein the indication of the upper limit transmit power indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP uses a transmit power that is less than or equal to the upper limit transmit power ( “The method includes obtaining a transmission opportunity for wireless communication via a wireless channel. The method also includes selecting one or more other wireless access points to participate in the transmission opportunity. The method also includes determining a maximum transmit power permitted to be used by each of the one or more selected access points for transmissions during the transmission opportunity. The method additionally includes transmitting a message to the one or more selected access points that includes, for each of the selected access points: an indication of time and frequency resources of the transmission opportunity usable by the selected access point to transmit data to, or receive data from, one or more respective wireless stations associated with the access point during the transmission opportunity; and an indication of the maximum transmit power for the selected access point” – See [0006]; “the TXOP owner AP1 can determine the maximum TX power TX MAX for each one of the selected APs using Equation 5 based on the acceptable SIR for STA1, its own TX power TX AP1 , its measurement of the RX power RX AP1-STA of the CTS frame 712” – See [0090]; The AP sharing the TXOP outputs an indicating of a maximum transmit power limit for a second AP in accordance with the measurements, wherein the second AP uses a transmit power less than the maximum transmit power when transmitting in the shared TXOP). Claims 24 and 47 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2. Claim 25 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3. Claims 26 and 48 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4. Regarding Claim 27, Shafin in view of Verma and Kanaya teaches the apparatus of Claim 26. Verma further teaches that the one or more interfaces are further configured to: output a frame that indicates an upper limit transmit power for the second client device in accordance with the upper limit interference level, wherein the uplink transmit power is less than or equal to the upper limit transmit power, and wherein the frame includes a control frame or a management frame ( “The method includes obtaining a transmission opportunity for wireless communication via a wireless channel. The method also includes selecting one or more other wireless access points to participate in the transmission opportunity. The method also includes determining a maximum transmit power permitted to be used by each of the one or more selected access points for transmissions during the transmission opportunity. The method additionally includes transmitting a message to the one or more selected access points that includes, for each of the selected access points: an indication of time and frequency resources of the transmission opportunity usable by the selected access point to transmit data to, or receive data from, one or more respective wireless stations associated with the access point during the transmission opportunity; and an indication of the maximum transmit power for the selected access point” – See [0006]; “According to such techniques, an AP that wins contention and gains access to the wireless medium for the duration of a TXOP (referred to as the TXOP owner) may limit the transmit powers of the APs selected to share the time and frequency resources such that interference from the selected APs does not prevent STAs associated with the TXOP owner from successfully decoding packets transmitted by the TXOP owner” – See [0027]; The access point outputs a frame indicating a maximum transmit power (upper limit transmit power) in accordance with an upper interference limit such that the maximum transmit power will not cause undue interference that prevents STAs associated with the AP that has obtained the TXOP from decoding packets) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (US 2022/0408355) in view of Verma et al. (US 2021/0136679) and further in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0103807) . Regarding Claim 14, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Shafin and Verma do not explicitly teach that the one or more interfaces are further configured to: output, to the second AP, a request for a buffer status of the second AP, a quality of service (QoS) associated with the second AP, or a target transmit power of the second AP, wherein outputting the indication of the TXOP for the first AP and the information associated with the conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP is associated with the buffer status of the second AP, the QoS associated with the second AP, or the target transmit power of the second AP. However, Park teaches outputting, to the second AP, a request for a buffer status of the second AP, a quality of service (QoS) associated with the second AP, or a target transmit power of the second AP, wherein outputting the indication of the TXOP for the first AP and the information associated with the conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP is associated with the buffer status of the second AP, the QoS associated with the second AP, or the target transmit power of the second AP ( “The sharing AP may request, to the shared AP, the BSS information of the shared AP and receive the requested information from the shared AP. The BSS information requested by the sharing AP is as follows. A. Buffer status of shared AP: The sharing AP can participate in Multi-AP transmission with priority on shared APs having a large amount of buffer” – See [0351]-[0352]; The sharing/first AP outputs a buffer status request to the shared/second AP, wherein the sharing of the TXOP is based on the buffer status (e.g., higher priority for shared APs with large amount of buffered data)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shafin to output, to the second AP, a request for a buffer status of the second AP, a quality of service (QoS) associated with the second AP, or a target transmit power of the second AP, wherein outputting the indication of the TXOP for the first AP and the information associated with the conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP is associated with the buffer status of the second AP, the QoS associated with the second AP, or the target transmit power of the second AP. Motivation for doing so would be to perform conditional sharing of the TXOP with a higher priority for APs having a large buffer amount (See Park, [0352]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (US 2022/0408355) in view of Verma et al. (US 2021/0136679) and further in view of Chitrakar et al. (US 2024/0098712) . Regarding Claim 83, Shafin in view of Verma teaches the method of Claim 62. Shafin further teaches acquiring the TXOP from the first AP in accordance with receiving the indication of the TXOP ( “The transceiver is configured to transmit traffic to a second station (STA) in a second target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) based on parameters of a second TWT operation between the second AP and the second STA” – See [0012]; The second AP acquires the shared TXOP from the first AP in accordance with a second target wake time service period indicated by the first AP). Shafin and Verma do not explicitly teach transmitting, to a third AP in accordance with acquiring the TXOP from the first AP, an indication of the TXOP and second information associated with a second conditional sharing of the TXOP by the third AP. However, Chitrakar teaches transmitting, to a third AP in accordance with acquiring the TXOP from the first AP, an indication of the TXOP and second information associated with a second conditional sharing of the TXOP by the third AP ( “Any of the APs (i.e. AP1, AP2 or AP3) assigned to a Coordinated TWT SP may assume the role of a Sharing AP. An AP may also send an unsolicited TWT Setup Response 906 to schedule another AP to join a Coordinated SP. The AP sending the unsolicited TWT Setup Response 906 may also include a list of APs that are already/planned to be assigned to the same Coordinated SP” – See [0077]; See also Fig. 9; AP1 transmits to AP3 (third AP) in accordance with acquiring the TXOP from AP2 (first AP), an indication of the TXOP and second information associated with conditional sharing of the TXOP by AP3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shafin to include transmitting, to a third AP in accordance with acquiring the TXOP from the first AP, an indication of the TXOP and second information associated with a second conditional sharing of the TXOP by the third AP. Motivation for doing so would be to enable additional APs to join the coordinated/shared TXOP (See Chitrakar, [0077]) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant’s arguments filed on March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 12-16 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Shafin and Verma do not teach “information associated with a conditional sharing of the TXOP by the second AP … wherein the information indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power,” as recited in independent claims 1, 21, 42, and 62. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claims 1, 21, 42, and 62 do not specify that the information that “indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power” serves as the basis for the conditional sharing of the TXOP. Instead, these claims only state that the information is associated with conditional sharing of the TXOP. Shafin discloses that the sharing of the TXOP is conditional since the first and second AP negotiate the parameters of the TWT that is included in the shared TXOP (See [0074] and [0082]). Shafin does not teach information indicating that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power. However, Verma teaches that the information indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power ( “The method includes obtaining a transmission opportunity for wireless communication via a wireless channel. The method also includes selecting one or more other wireless access points to participate in the transmission opportunity. The method also includes determining a maximum transmit power permitted to be used by each of the one or more selected access points for transmissions during the transmission opportunity. The method additionally includes transmitting a message to the one or more selected access points that includes, for each of the selected access points: an indication of time and frequency resources of the transmission opportunity usable by the selected access point to transmit data to, or receive data from, one or more respective wireless stations associated with the access point during the transmission opportunity; and an indication of the maximum transmit power for the selected access point” – See [0006]; “the TXOP owner AP1 can determine the maximum TX power TX MAX for each one of the selected APs using Equation 5 based on the acceptable SIR for STA1, its own TX power TX AP1 , its measurement of the RX power RX AP1-STA of the CTS frame 712” – See [0090]). The AP sharing the TXOP outputs an indication of a maximum transmit power limit for a second AP in accordance with the measurements, wherein the second AP uses a transmit power less than the maximum transmit power when transmitting in the shared TXOP. In the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Shafin’s conditionally shared TXOP is modified in view of the teachings of Verma so that a second AP that participates in Shafin’s conditionally shared TXOP will do so under the stipulation that its uses a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power. Thus, Verma’s information that “indicates that the second AP is able to share the TXOP with the first AP if the second AP is able to use a transmit power that is less than or equal to an upper limit transmit power” is associated with Shafin’s conditionally shared TXOP since the maximum transmit power information taught by Verma pertains to the conditionally shared TXOP disclosed by Shafin. Furthermore, Verma’s indication of a maximum transmit power limit/upper limit transmission power can be considered as a parameter for conditional sharing of the TXOP since the maximum transmit power since it stipulates a condition that must be met while the second/shared AP uses the TXOP shared by the first AP ( “AP2 may then transmit data to, or receive data from, one or more of the STAs associated with AP2 using the indicated time and frequency resources at a power at or below the indicated maximum TX power” – See [0109]). That is, during the sharing of the TXOP the second AP must transmit at or below the indicated maximum transmission power/upper limit transmission power. In other words, the second AP is only able to share the TXOP if it transmits at or below the indicated maximum transmission power/upper limit transmission power . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 9, 29, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 2 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 3 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 4 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 5 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 6 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 7 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 8 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 9 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 10 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 11 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 12 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 13 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 14 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 15 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 17 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 18 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 19 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 20 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 21 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/049,172 Page 22 Art Unit: 2478
Prosecution Insights