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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baron et al. (US 2023/0209512 A1, “Baron”).
Regarding claim 1:
Baron discloses a method of a first station (STA) (e.g., Fig. 6a, STA1), comprising:
receiving, from an access point (AP) (e.g., Fig. 6a, AP), a first frame including an information element indicating transmit opportunity (TXOP) sharing (e.g., Fig. 6a, 410, Fig. 8, 801, [0181]-[0182], [0195]); identifying a shared TXOP duration based on the first frame (e.g., [0183], [0196], [0201]); and performing communication with a second STA (e.g., Fig. 6a, STA2) within the shared TXOP duration (e.g., Fig. 8, 802, [0184], [0201]).
Regarding claim3:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein: a TXOP sharing mode is classified into a TXOP sharing mode 1 or a TXOP sharing mode 2 (e.g., Fig. 6a, direct link communication 421 and UL transmission 431/432); the first frame further includes an information element indicating the TXOP sharing mode 2 (e.g., [0183], direct link/P2P transmission); when the TXOP sharing mode 1 is indicated, communication between the first STA and the AP is allowed within the shared TXOP duration; and when the TXOP sharing mode 2 is indicated, direct communication between the first STA and the second STA is allowed within the shared TXOP duration (e.g., [0183], [0205] [0212], direct link transmission between STAs, and UL transmission between AP and STAs).
Regarding claim 4:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first frame further includes an information element indicating a length of the shared TXOP duration, and the shared TXOP duration is configured within a TXOP duration initiated by the AP (e.g., [0196]).
Regarding claim 5:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first frame further includes an information element indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within the shared TXOP duration (e.g., [0033]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 6:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first frame further includes an information element indicating an access category (AC) of a data unit transmittable in a link to which the TXOP sharing is applied (e.g., [0183], [0195], [0196], allocated RU for direct link transmission).
Regarding claim 7:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the performing of the communication with the second STA comprises transmitting, to the second STA and within the shared TXOP duration, at least one of a data unit corresponding to an AC equal to the AC indicated by the first frame or a data unit corresponding to an AC having a higher priority than the AC indicated by the first frame (e.g., [0184], [0201], STA1 transmitting P2P PPDU to STA2).
Regarding claim 8:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first frame includes an association identifier (AID) of each of a plurality of STAs performing communications within the shared TXOP duration, a first AID included in the first frame is an AID of the first STA that is a target of the TXOP sharing, and a second AID included in the first frame is an AID of the second STA (e.g., [0194], the AID of the source peer station, the AID of the destination peer station).
Regarding claim 9:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing of the communication with the second STA comprises: transmitting a first data frame to the second STA (e.g., Fig. 6a, 421, Fig. 6b, 423); receiving a reception response frame to the first data frame from the second STA (e.g. Fig. 6a, 422, Fig. 6b, PPDU, [0216], PPDU containing the acknowledgement of PPDU 423); and receiving a second data frame from the second STA (e.g., [0216], [0223], the PPDU may also include data to transmit to the peer STA1), wherein the first data frame includes at least one of an information element indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within the shared TXOP duration or an information element indicating an AC of a data unit for which the reverse direction communication is allowed (e.g., [0036], [0195]).
Regarding claim 10:
Baron discloses a method of an access point (AP), comprising: securing a transmit opportunity (TXOP) duration; generating a first frame including an information element indicating TXOP sharing, an information element indicating a length of a shared TXOP duration within the TXOP duration, an information element indicating that direct communication between a plurality of STAs is allowed within the shared TXOP duration, and an association identifier (AID) of each of the plurality of STAs performing the direct communication within the shared TXOP duration; transmitting the first frame to a first STA among the plurality of STAs; and receiving a second frame that is a response to the first frame from the first STA. (See similar claim limitations discussed above with respect to claims 1, 4, 8 and 9.)
Regarding claim 11:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the TXOP duration is secured by transmitting a clear-to-send (CTS)-to-self frame, the first frame is a multi-user-request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame, and the second frame is a CTS frame. (See rejection of claim 2.)
Regarding claim 12:
Baron further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the first frame further includes at least one of an information element indicating whether reverse direction communication is allowed within the shared TXOP duration or an information element indicating an access category (AC) of a data unit transmittable in a link to which the TXOP sharing is applied. (See rejection of claim 6.)
Regarding claim 13:
Baron discloses a first station (STA) (e.g., Fig. 13a, 1300) comprising: a processor (Fig. 13a, 1301); a memory (Fig. 13,a, 1303) electronically communicating with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory, wherein when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the first STA to: receive, from an access point (AP), a first frame including an information element indicating transmit opportunity (TXOP) sharing; identify a shared TXOP duration based on the first frame; and perform communication with a second STA within the shared TXOP duration. (See similar claim limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1.)
Regarding claims 14-20:
See similar claim limitations discussed above with respect to claims 3-9.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron in view of Seok et al. (US 2020/0245352 A1, “Seok”).
Regarding claim 2:
Baron does not disclose transmitting a second frame which is a response to the first frame, wherein the first frame is a multi-user-request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame, and the second frame is a clear-to-send (CTS) frame.
Seok teaches transmitting a second frame which is a response to the first frame, wherein the first frame is a multi-user-request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame (e.g., Fig. 9, 901/903), and the second frame is a clear-to-send (CTS) frame (e.g., Fig. 9, 902/904, [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Baron in view of Seok to include the feature transmitting a second frame which is a response to the first frame, wherein the first frame is a multi-user-request-to-send (MU-RTS) frame, and the second frame is a clear-to-send (CTS) frame, in order to prevent collisions between STAs operating in different modes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/BO HUI A ZHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465