DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 8, 17-20 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8, 18-20 recite a MAP trigger frame but do not specify what the term “MAP” stands for.
Claims 8, 18-20 recite “a BA soliciting manner” without specifying the term “BA”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oteri et al (US 20220030611, hereinafter referred to as Oteri).
Re claim 1, Oteri teaches a communication apparatus (AP1, Fig. 15), comprising:
(i) circuitry (processor, Par 0274), which in operation, generates a frame (first trigger frame, Fig. 15) comprising information (RU allocation, STA-specific information, common information) of a subsequent transmission (information regarding multi-AP data transmission of Data1, Data2, Fig. 15) (Fig. 15, Par 0160-0162, Par 0164-0169, Par 0173-0174, Par 0182-0183); and
(ii) a transmitter (radio frequency transceiver, Par 0274), which in operation, transmits the frame (first trigger frame, Fig. 15) to another communication apparatus (AP2, STA) (Fig. 15, Par 0160-0162, Par 0181-0183, Par 0186, Par 0208).
Claim 17 recites a method performing the functions recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Re claim 2, Oteri teaches that the communication apparatus (AP1) and the another communication apparatus (AP2) are access points (APs) (Fig. 15, Par 0181-0183, Par 0186, Par 0190, Par 0197, Par 0199).
Re claim 3, Oteri teaches that the information indicates whether the subsequent transmission is asynchronous or synchronous (synchronized transmission) (Fig. 15, Par 0161, Par 0178-0183).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oteri as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Viger et al (US 20230217491, hereinafter referred to as Viger).
Re claims 8, 18, 19, 20, Oteri teaches that the frame is MAP trigger frame (first trigger frame) (Fig. 15, Par 0160-0162).
Oteri does not explicitly disclose that when a BA Soliciting Manner subfield in the MAP trigger frame is indicated as ‘triggered response scheduling (TRS) Control field or Trigger frame’, the transmitter may be configured to transmit a frame carrying a TRS Control subfield or a MAP BlockAck Scheduling (MBS) Control subfield to indicate parameters of BlockAck frame to an associated STA.
Viger teaches that when a BA Soliciting Manner subfield in the MAP trigger frame is indicated as ‘triggered response scheduling (TRS) Control field or Trigger frame (TRS field triggering a response), the transmitter may be configured to transmit a frame carrying a TRS Control subfield or a MAP BlockAck Scheduling (MBS) Control subfield to indicate parameters of BlockAck frame to an associated STA (DL frame including TRS subfield is sent to non-AP station) (Fig. 11, Par 0247-0250).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oteri by including the step that when a BA Soliciting Manner subfield in the MAP trigger frame is indicated as ‘triggered response scheduling (TRS) Control field or Trigger frame’, the transmitter may be configured to transmit a frame carrying a TRS Control subfield or a MAP BlockAck Scheduling (MBS) Control subfield to indicate parameters of BlockAck frame to an associated STA, as taught by Viger for the purpose of providing “efficient mechanisms to perform synchronized multi-AP operation”, as taught by Viger (Par 0015).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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.
/HARUN CHOWDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2473