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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the communication mailed on 9/15/2025 and applicant has submitted an amendment, filed on 12/15/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 10, 19, 20 have been amended and claims 11, 12 have been canceled.
Examiner Notice
Examiner called Applicant representative on 2/19/2026 to suggest for examiner amendment to promote the compact prosecution. If Applicant cooperated the limitations already added in claim 10 and do the same to all other independent claims 1, and 19. Applicant perfected to see other office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 19, 20 filed on 12/15/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claims 10, 13-18 are allowed
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20210235486 (hereinafter referred to as Atefi) in view of US Patent Application Publication 20190342064 (hereinafter referred to as Tian).
Consider claim 1, Atefi discloses a method, comprising:
polling, using an access point (AP), a peer-to-peer (P2P) station associated with the AP (see at least ¶ [0014], Fig. 1, 2, “…many DL communications 122, 126, 152, 158 and many UL communications 124, 128, 154, 156. Additionally or alternatively, STAs may communicate with each other via peer-to-peer transmissions 130, 132…” and further see at least ¶ [0028], “…the apparatus (e.g., AP 110) that communicated … receiving a poll message…”);
receiving, in response to the polling, interference data from the P2P station indicating an amount of interference received at the P2P station caused by at least one other station associated with the AP (see at least ¶ [0028], “…the apparatus (e.g., AP 110) that communicated … receiving a poll message … from the apparatus (e.g., AP 110)…” and see at least ¶ [0329], “…an apparatus (e.g., AP … and/or STA …) 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) …, or in association with … interference…” and further see at least ¶ [0432], “…that apparatus (e.g., STA or AP,…) may initiate one or more communications that induce and/or suffers from an amount of interference that deteriorates communication with another apparatus (e.g., AP or STA, …)…”);
assigning a resource unit (RU) to the P2P station to perform P2P communication (see at least ¶ [0184], “…the STA (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) … may receive and/or decode a data packet … including a … field common to a plurality of users and also including a plurality of fields each containing … destination-specific information. … the STA (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) may utilize the field common to all users, receivers, recipients, and/or destinations to determine which of the resources (e.g., resource units) .…, … .the resource unit and/or resource allocation may include a portion or subset of the full bandwidth that is allocated to that specific user, receiver, recipient, and/or destination …”); and
transmitting a trigger frame from the AP to the P2P station, the trigger frame comprising the RU and an indication of a data rate the P2P station should use when communicating during the RU, wherein the data rate is based on the interference data (see at least ¶ [0168], “…the DL communication(s) 356, 357 may be configured to trigger (e.g., simultaneous/concurrent) UL communication(s) 362, 363 by a plurality of STAs (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) …)…” and further see at least ¶ [0184], “…may include various portions having relatively different characteristics. …provided to every user, receiver, intended/destined recipient, and/or destination of the data packet … may contain an allocation of resources (e.g., resource units) for each of the user, receiver, intended/destined recipient, and/or destination of the data packet…”).
Atefi disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Atefi does not particularly disclose receiving at the AP, in response to the polling, interference data from the P2P station. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Tian, which teaches receiving at the AP, in response to the polling, interference data from the P2P station (see Tian, at least ¶ [0043], “…The interference information may be a measured RSSI level associated with a transmission from STA 115-a that is received at STA 115-b…” and see at least ¶ [0061], “…The qualification may be based on interference data provided by the AP, interference data measured by the STA, predetermined interference thresholds, transmission power levels, buffer status levels, buffer status thresholds, clear channel assessment (CCA) determinations, or any combination or sub-set thereof. For example, the STA receiving the polling message may compare data (e.g., an interference threshold) received in the polling message or trigger message against interference data measured locally…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Atefi disclosed invention, and have receiving at the AP, in response to the polling, interference data from the P2P station, as taught by Tian, thereby, to provide one or more access points (APs) that provide a shared wireless communication medium for use by one or more client devices, also referred to as stations (STAs), as discussed by Tian, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Consider claim 19, Atefi teaches a computer readable medium, comprising: computer readable program code which, when executed by a processor, performs an operation (see at least ¶ [0514], “…The computer-readable medium 540 may be used for storing data that is used, processed, and/or manipulated by the processor(s) 550. The computer-readable medium 540 may be a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The computer-readable medium 540 may include one or more instructions (e.g., computer-executable code) configured to enable, may perform one or more algorithms related to, and/or may provide the structure (e.g., means for) corresponding to any one or more of the functions, features, steps, methods, processes, operations…”), the operation comprising:
polling a peer-to-peer (P2P) station associated with an access point (see at least ¶ [0014], Fig. 1, 2, “…many DL communications 122, 126, 152, 158 and many UL communications 124, 128, 154, 156. Additionally or alternatively, STAs may communicate with each other via peer-to-peer transmissions 130, 132…” and further see at least ¶ [0028], “…the apparatus (e.g., AP 110) that communicated … receiving a poll message…”);
receiving, in response to the polling, interference data from the P2P station indicating an amount of interference received at the P2P station caused by at least one other station associated with the AP (see at least ¶ [0028], “…the apparatus (e.g., AP 110) that communicated … receiving a poll message … from the apparatus (e.g., AP 110)…” and see at least ¶ [0329], “…an apparatus (e.g., AP … and/or STA …) 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) …, or in association with … interference…” and further see at least ¶ [0432], “…that apparatus (e.g., STA or AP,…) may initiate one or more communications that induce and/or suffers from an amount of interference that deteriorates communication with another apparatus (e.g., AP or STA, …)…”);
assigning a resource unit (RU) to the P2P station to perform P2P communication (see at least ¶ [0184], “…the STA (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) … may receive and/or decode a data packet … including a … field common to a plurality of users and also including a plurality of fields each containing … destination-specific information. … the STA (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) may utilize the field common to all users, receivers, recipients, and/or destinations to determine which of the resources (e.g., resource units) .…, … .the resource unit and/or resource allocation may include a portion or subset of the full bandwidth that is allocated to that specific user, receiver, recipient, and/or destination …”); and
transmitting a trigger frame from the AP to the P2P station, the trigger frame comprising the RU and an indication of a data rate the P2P station should use when communicating during the RU, wherein the data rate is based on the interference data (see at least ¶ [0168], “…the DL communication(s) 356, 357 may be configured to trigger (e.g., simultaneous/concurrent) UL communication(s) 362, 363 by a plurality of STAs (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) …)…” and further see at least ¶ [0184], “…may include various portions having relatively different characteristics. …provided to every user, receiver, intended/destined recipient, and/or destination of the data packet … may contain an allocation of resources (e.g., resource units) for each of the user, receiver, intended/destined recipient, and/or destination of the data packet…”).
Atefi disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Atefi does not particularly disclose receiving at the AP, in response to the polling, interference data from the P2P station. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Tian, which teaches receiving at the AP, in response to the polling, interference data from the P2P station (see Tian, at least ¶ [0043], “…The interference information may be a measured RSSI level associated with a transmission from STA 115-a that is received at STA 115-b…” and see at least ¶ [0061], “…The qualification may be based on interference data provided by the AP, interference data measured by the STA, predetermined interference thresholds, transmission power levels, buffer status levels, buffer status thresholds, clear channel assessment (CCA) determinations, or any combination or sub-set thereof. For example, the STA receiving the polling message may compare data (e.g., an interference threshold) received in the polling message or trigger message against interference data measured locally…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Atefi disclosed invention, and have receiving at the AP, in response to the polling, interference data from the P2P station, as taught by Tian, thereby, to provide one or more access points (APs) that provide a shared wireless communication medium for use by one or more client devices, also referred to as stations (STAs), as discussed by Tian, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Consider claims 2, 20 (depends on at least claims 1, 19), Atefi in view of Tian discloses the limitations of claims 1, 19 as applied to claim rejection 1, 19 above and further discloses:
Atefi teaches wherein the trigger frame comprises a second RU assigned to a first station associated with the AP, wherein the second RU indicates the first station is permitted to transmit data to the AP at a same time the P2P station performs P2P communication (see at least ¶ [0174], “…That indicated time may be at the same time as the time of transmission of CTS message(s)/signal(s) (e.g., in UL communication(s) 352, 353) by other STAs (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) (that were intended recipients of the RTS message(s)/signal(s) (e.g., in DL communication(s) 350, 351) from the AP)…” and see at least ¶ [0347], “…received by each of the one or more STAs (e.g., a single STA (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s)), or each of a plurality of STAs (or their PR(s) and/or SR(s))) may include a first resource unit that includes at least a first resource unit attribute (as described herein) and a second resource unit that includes a second resource unit attribute…”).
Consider claim 3 (depends on at least claim 1), Atefi in view of Tian discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Atefi teaches wherein the data rate for P2P station is set so that interference caused by the first station transmitting data to the AP does not violate signal-to-noise (SNR) requirements of a second P2P station that is receiving data from the P2P station during the P2P communication (see at least ¶ [0014], “…many DL communications 122, 126, 152, 158 and many UL communications 124, 128, 154, 156. Additionally or alternatively, STAs may communicate with each other via peer-to-peer transmissions 130, 132…” and see at least ¶ [0401], “…such as where the utilization of such at least one of its links/channels/antennas/radios may possibly negatively affect any ongoing or near-future communication(s) utilizing another one of its plurality of links/channels/antennas/radios (e.g., due to any same-apparatus-induced interference and/or packet collision/corruption), such apparatus (e.g., STA, AP, or their respective PR(s) and/or SR(s)) may perform one or more steps/processes/actions to minimize or avoid any such possibly negative effect, thereby increasing the performance of the overall apparatus (e.g., STA, AP, or their respective PR(s) and/or SR(s)) and reducing power and resource consumption required for wireless communication…”).
Consider claim 4 (depends on at least claim 1), Atefi in view of Tian discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Atefi teaches wherein the trigger frame comprises a second RU assigned to a second P2P station associated with the AP, wherein the second RU indicates the second P2P station can perform P2P communication at a same time the P2P station performs P2P communication (see at least ¶ [0174], “…That indicated time may be at the same time as the time of transmission of CTS message(s)/signal(s) (e.g., in UL communication(s) 352, 353) by other STAs (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) (that were intended recipients of the RTS message(s)/signal(s) (e.g., in DL communication(s) 350, 351) from the AP)…” and see at least ¶ [0347], “…received by each of the one or more STAs (e.g., a single STA (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s)), or each of a plurality of STAs (or their PR(s) and/or SR(s))) may include a first resource unit that includes at least a first resource unit attribute (as described herein) and a second resource unit that includes a second resource unit attribute…”).
Consider claim 5 (depends on at least claim 1), Atefi in view of Tian discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Atefi teaches wherein the data rate for the P2P station is set so that interference caused by the second P2P station when performing P2P communication does not violate SNR requirements of a third P2P station that is receiving data from the P2P station during the P2P communication (see at least ¶ [0014], “…many DL communications 122, 126, 152, 158 and many UL communications 124, 128, 154, 156. Additionally or alternatively, STAs may communicate with each other via peer-to-peer transmissions 130, 132…” and see at least ¶ [0401], “…such as where the utilization of such at least one of its links/channels/antennas/radios may possibly negatively affect any ongoing or near-future communication(s) utilizing another one of its plurality of links/channels/antennas/radios (e.g., due to any same-apparatus-induced interference and/or packet collision/corruption), such apparatus (e.g., STA, AP, or their respective PR(s) and/or SR(s)) may perform one or more steps/processes/actions to minimize or avoid any such possibly negative effect, thereby increasing the performance of the overall apparatus (e.g., STA, AP, or their respective PR(s) and/or SR(s)) and reducing power and resource consumption required for wireless communication…”), wherein the trigger frame comprises an indication of a second data rate the second P2P station should use when communicating during the second RU, wherein the second data rate is set so that the interference caused by the P2P station when performing P2P communication does not violate the SNR requirements of a fourth P2P station that receives data from the second P2P station during P2P communication (see at least ¶ [0174], “…That indicated time may be at the same time as the time of transmission of CTS message(s)/signal(s) (e.g., in UL communication(s) 352, 353) by other STAs (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) (that were intended recipients of the RTS message(s)/signal(s) (e.g., in DL communication(s) 350, 351) from the AP)…” and see at least ¶ [0347], “…received by each of the one or more STAs (e.g., a single STA (or its PR(s) and/or SR(s)), or each of a plurality of STAs (or their PR(s) and/or SR(s))) may include a first resource unit that includes at least a first resource unit attribute (as described herein) and a second resource unit that includes a second resource unit attribute…”).
Consider claim 7 (depends on at least claim 1), Atefi in view of Tian discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Atefi teaches wherein the trigger frame comprise an indication that the P2P station should transmit data while a second P2P station should receive data during the RU (see at least ¶ [0168], “…the DL communication(s) 356, 357 may be configured to trigger (e.g., simultaneous/concurrent) UL communication(s) 362, 363 by a plurality of STAs (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) (or its PR(s) 222, 232 and/or SR(s) 224, 234)…” and further see at least ¶ [0184], “…a data packet (e.g., any one or more of DL communication(s) 350, 351, 354, 355, 356, 357) may include various portions having relatively different characteristics. …provided to every user, receiver, intended/destined recipient, and/or destination of the data packet (e.g., any one or more of DL communication(s) 350, 351, 354, 355, 356, 357) may contain an allocation of resources (e.g., resource units) for each of the user, receiver, intended/destined recipient, and/or destination of the data packet (e.g., any one or more of DL communication(s) 350, 351, 354, 355, 356, 357)…”).
Consider claim 8 (depends on at least claim 1), Atefi in view of Tian discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Atefi teaches synchronizing a local oscillator in the P2P station and a local oscillator in a receiving P2P STA to the trigger frame (see at least ¶ [0064], “…AP 110 may transmit and STA(s) 120, 150 may receive (e.g., using SR(s) 224, 234) a beacon that includes information corresponding to timing information for synchronizing communications with AP 110…” and see at least ¶ [0114], “…at a first data rate, a second set including one on-duration and one off-duration correspond to a second value, and/or, at a second data rate, a second set including two on-durations and two off-duration correspond to the second value…”).
Consider claim 9 (depends on at least claim 1), Atefi in view of Tian discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Atefi teaches wherein the trigger frame comprises a group ID assigned to the P2P station and a companion P2P station for receiving data during the RU, wherein the group ID replaces an association ID (AID) in the trigger frame (see at least ¶ [0044], “…one or more identifiers (e.g., the first identifier and/or the second identifier) that identify/identifies the transmitter (e.g., AP 110) (e.g., that transmitted the packet, awaken packet, awaken request packet, etc.) may include, correspond to, be associated with, or bear a relationship to a BSS identifier and/or BSS color/category/grouping with which the transmitter (e.g., AP 110) and/or receiver (e.g., STA(s) 120, 150) is associated…” and further see at least ¶ [0184], “…a data packet (e.g., any one or more of DL communication(s) 350, 351, 354, 355, 356, 357) may include various portions having relatively different characteristics. …provided to every user, receiver, intended/destined recipient, and/or destination of the data packet (e.g., any one or more of DL communication(s) 350, 351, 354, 355, 356, 357) may contain an allocation of resources (e.g., resource units) for each of the user, receiver, intended/destined recipient, and/or destination of the data packet (e.g., any one or more of DL communication(s) 350, 351, 354, 355, 356, 357)…”).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20210235486 (hereinafter referred to as Atefi) in view of US Patent Application Publication 20190342064 (hereinafter referred to as Tian) and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 20240137980 (hereinafter referred to as Ajami).
Consider claim 6 (depends on at least claim 1), Atefi in view Tian discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Atefi in view Tian disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Atefi in view Tian does not particularly disclose the trigger frame is a Ultra-High Reliability (UHR) trigger frame. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Ajami, which teaches the trigger frame is a Ultra-High Reliability (UHR) trigger frame. (see Ajami, at least ¶ [0054], “…the wireless communications network may support scheduling of pre-UHR (such as extremely high throughput (EHT) or high efficiency (HE)) STAs without changes to a pre-UHR feature set. In some aspects, the first AP 102 may share the TXOP for the first AP 102 such that a quantity of reuse transmissions is equal to one at a given time, which may facilitate network simplicity and relatively lower complexity…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Atefi and Tian disclosed invention, and have the trigger frame is a Ultra-High Reliability (UHR) trigger frame, as taught by Ajami, thereby, to provide various types of communication content such as voice, video, packet data, messaging, broadcast, and so on. These systems may be multiple-access systems capable of supporting communication with multiple users by sharing the available system resources, as discussed by Ajami, (see at least ¶ [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-18 are allowed.
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 CHUONG A NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-7264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/CHUONG A NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645