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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/18/2024 and 12/4/2024 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (claims 11-20) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2023/0328622, Park hereinafter). Regarding claim 11, Park teaches a communication apparatus applied to a system (Access Point (e.g., AP 2) selected as a Slave AP in at least Figs. 30-35; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]), comprising a memory configured to store instructions (APs may be comprised of a memory; Park; Figs. 1 and 19; [0059], [0064]); and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the communication apparatus (APs may be comprised of a processor coupled to the memory; Park; Figs. 1 and 19; [0059], [0064]) to be configured to: receive, from a central coordinator node (As can be seen in at least Figs. 30-32 and their corresponding description, AP 1 may be a Master AP (i.e., a central coordinator node); Park; Figs. 30-35; [0310]-[0311]), an operation mode switching message indicating a target node is to be switched from a first operation mode to a second operation mode (As can be seen in at least Fig. 35, AP 1 may select at least one Slave AP (e.g., AP2) by transmitting a request (i.e., an operation mode switching message) to the Slave AP. Such a request may be interpreted as an operation mode switching message indicating a target node (e.g., AP 2) is to be switched from a first operation mode to a second operation mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]), wherein the system comprises a plurality of nodes and the central coordinator node (At least AP 1 (i.e., the central coordinator node), AP 2, STA 1, and STA b; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]), wherein a communication channel exists between each of the plurality of nodes and the central coordinator node (As can be seen in at least Figs. 30-35, a communication channel may exist between AP 1 (i.e., the central coordinator node) and at least AP 2, STA 1, and STA b; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]), and wherein the communication apparatus is the target node in the plurality of nodes (The AP selected as a Slave AP (e.g., AP2) is a target node that receives the operation switching message; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]); and switch the target node from the first operation mode to the second operation mode based on the operation mode switching message (The AP selected as a slave AP (e.g., AP2) switches operation modes (i.e., from the first operation mode to the second operation mode) based on the request (i.e., the operation switching message); Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]). Regarding claim 13, Park teaches the limitations of claim 11. Park further teaches the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the communication apparatus to be configured to send an operation mode switching response message to the central coordinator node (As can be seen in at least Fig. 35, AP 2 may transmit a response message (i.e., an operation mode switching response message) to AP 1; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]), and wherein the operation mode switching response message notifies the central coordinator node that the target node is to be switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode (The response message may be interpreted as notifying AP 1 that AP 2 is to be switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0365]). Regarding claim 14, Park teaches the limitations of claim 11. Park further teaches the first operation mode is a backup central coordinator node mode (An AP in a mode prior to a slave mode may be interpreted as being in a backup central coordinator node mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0365]), and wherein the second operation mode is a member node mode (A slave mode may be interpreted as a member node mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0365]). Regarding claim 16, Park teaches the limitations of claim 11. Park further teaches the first operation mode is a member node mode (An AP node in communication with network devices may be interpreted as operating in a member node mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0365]), and wherein the second operation mode is a backup central coordinator node mode (A node acting as a slave to a node interpreted as a central coordinator node may be interpreted as a backup central coordinator node mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0365]). Regarding claim 17, Park teaches a central coordinator node applied to a system (Access Point (e.g., AP 1) acting as a Master AP in at least Figs. 30-35; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]), comprising a memory configured to store instructions (APs may be comprised of a memory; Park; Figs. 1 and 19; [0059], [0064]); and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the central coordinator node (APs may be comprised of a processor coupled to the memory; Park; Figs. 1 and 19; [0059], [0064]) to be configured to: determine, from among a plurality of nodes, a target node whose operation mode is to be switched (As can be seen in at least Fig. 35, AP 1 may select at least one Slave AP (e.g., AP 2), which may be interpreted as determining a target node whose operation mode is to be switched; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]), wherein the system comprises the plurality of nodes and the central coordinator node (At least AP 1 (i.e., the central coordinator node), AP 2, STA 1, and STA b; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]), and wherein a communication channel exists between each of the plurality of nodes and the central coordinator node (As can be seen in at least Figs. 30-35, a communication channel may exist between AP 1 (i.e., the central coordinator node) and at least AP 2, STA 1, and STA b; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]); and send, to the target node, an operation mode switching message indicating the target node is to be switched from a first operation mode to a second operation mode (As can be seen in at least Fig. 35, AP 1 may transmit a request (i.e., an operation mode switching message) to at least AP 2 (i.e., the target node) indicating that AP 2 is a Slave AP. Such a request may be interpreted as an operation mode switching message indicating the target node is to be switched from a first operation mode to a second operation mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360]). Regarding claim 19, Park teaches the limitations of claim 17. Park further teaches the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the central coordinator node to be configured to: receive, from the target node, an operation mode switching response message indicating that the target node is to be switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode (As can be seen in at least Fig. 35, AP 1 may receive a response message from at least AP 2 (i.e., the target node), which may be interpreted as indicating that AP 2 is to be switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0365]); and send a change request message to a node other than the target node in the plurality of nodes, wherein the change request message requests the node to change a node parameter (As can be seen in at least Fig. 35, AP 1 may also transmit a request (i.e., an operation mode switching message) to at least AP 3 indicating that AP 3 is a Slave AP, which may be interpreted as a change request message that requests the node to change a node parameter; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0360], [0370]-[0372]).
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.
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) 12, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0328622, Park hereinafter) in view of Cherian et al. (US 2020/0076552, Cherian hereinafter). Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the limitations of claim 11. However, Park does not specifically disclose the operation mode switching message further indicates an effective time at which the target node is switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode, and wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the communication apparatus to be configured to: start a first timer when receiving the operation mode switching message; and further switch the target node from the first operation mode to the second operation mode when the first timer reaches the effective time. Cherian teaches the operation mode switching message further indicates an effective time at which the target node is switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode (An AP may transmit to at least a second AP an indication of a start of a portion of a transmission opportunity when the second AP should perform coordinated communication with the first AP, which may be interpreted as an operation mode switching message that indicates an effective time at which the target node is switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode; Cherian; Figs. 18 and 20; [0279]-[0280], [0292]-[0293]), and wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the communication apparatus to be configured to: start a first timer when receiving the operation mode switching message (Examiner takes official notice that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be obvious that a node, such as a second AP, that successfully switches transmission modes at an indicated future time is capable of tracking the passage of time using, e.g., a timer; Cherian; Figs. 18 and 20; [0279]-[0280], [0292]-[0293]); and further switch the target node from the first operation mode to the second operation mode when the first timer reaches the effective time (Examiner takes official notice that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be obvious that a node, such as a second AP, that successfully switches transmission modes at an indicated future time is capable of switching between such modes based on tracking the passage of time until such a mode switch using, e.g., a timer; Cherian; Figs. 18 and 20; [0279]-[0280], [0292]-[0293]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cherian regarding coordinated Access Point transmission with the teachings as in Park regarding coordinated Access Point transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by providing improved system throughput, increase spectral efficiency by more fully using one or more available subchannels within a wireless bandwidth, enhanced interference management by allowing coordinated concurrent transmissions in orthogonalized wireless resources, and efficient implementation without a need for backhaul coordination among APs (Cherian; [0128]). Regarding claim 15, Park teaches the limitations of claim 11. Park further teaches the first operation mode is a backup central coordinator node mode or a member node mode (An AP in a mode prior to a slave mode may be interpreted as being in a backup central coordinator node mode or a member node mode; Park; Figs. 30-35; [0311], [0359]-[0365]). However, Park does not specifically disclose the second operation mode is a node that performs a function of an earlier version. Cherian teaches the second operation mode is a node that performs a function of an earlier version (Access points are described as performing communication with legacy devices using at least legacy header information, and may thus be interpreted as performing a function of an earlier version; Cherian; [0140], [0160]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cherian regarding coordinated Access Point transmission with the teachings as in Park regarding coordinated Access Point transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by providing improved system throughput, increase spectral efficiency by more fully using one or more available subchannels within a wireless bandwidth, enhanced interference management by allowing coordinated concurrent transmissions in orthogonalized wireless resources, and efficient implementation without a need for backhaul coordination among APs (Cherian; [0128]). Regarding claim 18, Park teaches the limitations of claim 17. However, Park does not specifically disclose the operation mode switching message further indicates an effective time at which the target node is switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode. Park teaches the operation mode switching message further indicates an effective time at which the target node is switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode (An AP may transmit to at least a second AP an indication of a start of a portion of a transmission opportunity when the second AP should perform coordinated communication with the first AP, which may be interpreted as an operation mode switching message that indicates an effective time at which the target node is switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode; Cherian; Figs. 18 and 20; [0279]-[0280], [0292]-[0293]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cherian regarding coordinated Access Point transmission with the teachings as in Park regarding coordinated Access Point transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by providing improved system throughput, increase spectral efficiency by more fully using one or more available subchannels within a wireless bandwidth, enhanced interference management by allowing coordinated concurrent transmissions in orthogonalized wireless resources, and efficient implementation without a need for backhaul coordination among APs (Cherian; [0128]). Regarding claim 20, Park teaches the limitations of claim 19. However, Park does not specifically disclose the change request message comprises a reason for switching an operation mode and/or an effective time of the second operation mode. Cherian teaches the change request message comprises a reason for switching an operation mode and/or an effective time of the second operation mode (An AP may transmit to at least a second AP an indication of a start of a portion of a transmission opportunity when the second AP should perform coordinated communication with the first AP, which may be interpreted as an operation mode switching message that indicates an effective time at which the target node is switched from the first operation mode to the second operation mode; Cherian; Figs. 18 and 20; [0279]-[0280], [0292]-[0293]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cherian regarding coordinated Access Point transmission with the teachings as in Park regarding coordinated Access Point transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by providing improved system throughput, increase spectral efficiency by more fully using one or more available subchannels within a wireless bandwidth, enhanced interference management by allowing coordinated concurrent transmissions in orthogonalized wireless resources, and efficient implementation without a need for backhaul coordination among APs (Cherian; [0128]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474