Detail Action
This office action is a response to an amendment submitted on 04/27/2026.
Claims 1- 10 are pending for examination.
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 statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 01/31/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 10 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/06/2026 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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.
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(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20220123881 A1); hereinafter “Li”; in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20210143884 A1), hereinafter “Kwong”.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches A communication apparatus, comprising:
reception circuitry, which, in operation, receives a signal [Li: Fig. 11- 13]; and control circuitry, which, in operation, controls a transmission inhibition period based on the signal [Li: Par. 5 teaches master AP setting NAV for STA 2 associated with the slave AP],
changes a setting related to a transmission inhibition period based on whether a sender of the signal belongs to a group that is related to cooperative communication and that is common to the communication apparatus [Li: Fig. 5; Par. 150 teaches the transmitter transfer announcement/ signal /frame ( Par. 191 teach transfer frame which carried TXOP time period) of master AP set the basic navigation allocation for STA2 associated with slave SP (belong to a group).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Li does not teach wherein operation does not update the transmission inhibition period when the control circuitry receives the signal including information about a transmission opportunity from the sender that belongs to the group.
Nevertheless, Kwon, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches operation does not update the transmission inhibition period when the control circuitry receives the signal including information about a transmission opportunity from the sender that belongs to the group [Kwong: Fig. 2B; Par. 55- 66 teaches STA shall update only if all the following conditions are met; where STA does not receive a frame/ signal in the PPDU]
PNG
media_image2.png
374
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Kwon for setting NAV setting rules. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kwon in the Li system in order to implement NAV rules [Kwon: Par. 57].
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Kwon further teaches the control circuitry determines whether the sender belongs to the group, based on identification information included in the signal [Li: Par. 170 further teaches of identification of AID (association identifier) and triggered based on association].
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Kwon further teaches the control circuitry determines that the sender belongs to the group when user information destined for the communication apparatus is included in the signal [Li: Par. 170].
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Kwon further teaches the control circuitry determines whether the sender belongs to the group, based on information about the group included in a beacon signal [Li: Par. 107, 202 teaches of sending trigger frame].
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Kwon further teaches the communication apparatus is a station (STA)[LI: Fig. 5; Par. 170, 150].
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Kwon further teaches the communication apparatus is an access point [Li: Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Kwon further teaches the control circuitry sets a first transmission inhibition period for a Basic Service Set (BSS) that is common to the communication apparatus, when the control circuitry receives the signal including information about a transmission opportunity from the sender that belongs to the group [Lin: Par. 85, 170, 186 teaches of sending BSS from master AP to slave AP], and
the control circuitry sets a second transmission inhibition period for a BSS that differs from the BSS of the communication apparatus, when the control circuitry receives the signal including information about the transmission opportunity from the sender that does not belong to the group [Lin: Par. 186- 187 teaches of inter and intra BSS associated with master AP is sends to slave AP and slave AP returns the usage right of TXOP to master AP].
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Kwon further teaches the control circuitry cancels a setting of the first transmission inhibition period when the control circuitry receives a trigger frame including user information destined for the communication apparatus [Li: Fig. 5; Par. 107, 150 teaches of receiving and sending trigger frame with information].
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Kwon further teaches a reception circuitry that receives information about cancelling of a setting of the first transmission inhibition period, wherein the control circuitry cancels the setting of the first transmission inhibition period based on the information [Par. 70- 83 teaches information related to backoff if conditions of BSS are not met].
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches A communication method comprising:
receiving a signal by a communication apparatus; and [Li: Fig. 11- 13]; controlling a transmission inhibition period based on the signal [Li: Par. 5 teaches master AP setting NAV for STA 2 associated with the slave AP]
changing a setting related to a transmission inhibition period by the communication apparatus based on whether a sender of the signal belongs to a group that is related to cooperative communication and that is common to the communication apparatus [Li: Fig. 5; Par. 150 teaches the transmitter transfer announcement/ signal /frame ( Par. 191 teach transfer frame which carried TXOP time period) of master AP set the basic navigation allocation for STA2 associated with slave SP (belong to a group).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Li does not teach wherein operation does not update the transmission inhibition period when the control circuitry receives the signal including information about a transmission opportunity from the sender that belongs to the group.
Nevertheless, Kwon, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches operation does not update the transmission inhibition period when the control circuitry receives the signal including information about a transmission opportunity from the sender that belongs to the group [Kwong: Fig. 2B; Par. 55- 66 teaches STA shall update only if all the following conditions are met; where STA does not receive a frame/ signal in the PPDU]
PNG
media_image2.png
374
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Kwon for setting NAV setting rules. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kwon in the Li system in order to implement NAV rules [Kwon: Par. 57].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights