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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-4, 6-7, 9, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 10 and 20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1 and 20 recites limitation, “obtaining interference information associated with at least one device interfering with multi-access point communication, wherein the interference information comprises at least one of an indication of a frequency of occurrence of interference with the multi-access point communication or an indication of a duration of the interference; and performing resource allocation for the multi-access point communication, based on the interference information”; and participating, based on the resource allocation, in a multi-AP communication with a multi-AP coordination group. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites obtaining interference information associated with at least one device interfering with multi-access point communication and performing resource allocation for the multi-access point communication, and then participating, based on the resource allocation, in a multi-AP communication with a multi-AP coordination group. The obtaining step and participating step based on that information are often viewed as routing, conventional activities of the computer system and performing resource allocation as a generic functional step of mathematical process or mental step without specific algorithm constraints, which may be label as an abstract idea without an inventive concept. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, the step of wherein the interference information comprises at least one of an indication of a frequency of occurrence of interference with the multi-access point communication or an indication of a duration of the interference does not add additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims. However, if applicant add limitation from claim 5 and 14 in combination of claim 8 and 17 it will overcome the 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 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(s) 1-3, 9-12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi et al. Pub. No. US 20200076519 A1 in view of Durand et al. Pub. No. US 20060182064 A1
Regarding Claim 1, Asterjadhi teaches a computer-implemented (Para 132, a WLAN, one or more APs 105 may be in wireless communication with one or more STAs 115 i.e., computer implemented method) method comprising:
obtaining interference information associated with at least one device (Para 138, AP 105-a may determine whether to share a transmission opportunity (TxOP) with one or more neighbor APs 105 in a multi-AP coordinated transmission. AP 105-a may use interference measurements to determine whether to share the TxOP with the one or more neighbor APs 105. If AP 105-a determines to share the TxOP with one or more neighbor APs 105, AP 105-a may also use the interference measurements to determine which RUs of the TxOP to allocate to the one or more neighbor APs 105 i.e., obtaining interference information associated with at least one device) interfering with multi-access point communication (Para 139, a neighbor AP 105 or one or more STAs 115 that are not associated with AP 105-a may be included in the first set i.e., interfering. One or more AP 105 and one or more STAs 115 may be instructed, in the first message to the first set of STAs 115, to send an uplink transmission. AP 105-b may receive the feedback report from the second set of STAs. Additionally, or alternatively, one or more AP 105 or one or more STAs that are not associated with AP 105-a may be included in the second set. By including neighboring APs 105 or unassociated STAs 115 in the first set of STAs 115 or the second set of STAs 115, AP 105-a can use the received interference measurements to determine a) which, if any, neighboring APs 105 are candidates for a multi-AP coordinated transmission during a TxOP owned by AP 105-a, and b) which RUs of the shared TxOP to allocate to the one or more neighboring APs 105 for the multi-AP coordinated transmission during the TxOP i.e., interfering with multi-access point communication)
performing resource allocation for the multi-access point communication, based on the interference information (Para 199, the communication parameter manager 1125 may adjust a communication parameter based on the interference report i.e., performing resource allocation for the multi-access point communication, based on the interference information);
participating, based on the resource allocation, in the multi-AP communication with a multi-AP coordination group (Para 156-157 and 199, AP 105 may receive interference report 530, and may take one or more actions based thereon. For instance, AP 105 may group or regroup STAs 115, adjust an MCS, coordinate with other APs 105, identify transmit powers for subsequent communications, adjust subsequent scheduling of uplink or downlink communications, schedule simultaneous uplink and downlink communications with one or more STAs 115 (e.g., in a full duplex mode), enable clear request to send (RTS) clear to send (CTS) protocols (e.g., to protect transmissions from a STA 115 based on known interference) i.e., participating, based on the resource allocation, in the multi-AP communication with a multi-AP coordination group).
Asterjadhi teaches that the transmit power for each of the STAs 115 in the first set of STAs 115 are transmitted at the same or similar transmit power levels, no one STA 115 will transmit at a transmit level that is high enough to overwhelm (e.g., cause interference to) a neighboring RU. Thus, it may be desirable for AP 105-a to solicit and receive improved information regarding inter-station interference, and to generate a radio frequency (RF) map indicating which STAs 115 interfere with which other STAs 115. Such information may be used to group STAs 115 into one or more sets, or to regroup current sets of STAs based on current interference information. AP 105-a may more efficiently manage a network and decrease interference by soliciting and utilizing improved interference information regarding STAs 115 in geographic coverage area 120-a, as described in greater detail with respect to FIGS. 2-8 (Para 136) but does not specifically teach an indication of a duration of the interference.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Durand teaches from Fig. 1 and Para 16, that after gathering multiple data points across a sample window 306, parallel processes are executed to calculate interference signal duration and period i.e., indication of a frequency of occurrence of interference with the multi-access point communication. Interference period is determined by identifying a maximum energy point ("peak") 308 in a window and then determining the time between that peak and a corresponding adjacent peak of similar power. Pulse duration may be calculated by finding the first samples on both sides of the peak that drop to the measurement noise floor on each side of the peak i.e., an indication of a duration of the interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Asterjadhi with the method of Durand so as to enable communications between an end station and access point to be maintained or re-enabled where communication would otherwise be broken thus maintaining communication which may be less disruptive than breaking a communication link and re-authenticating on a different channel (See Durand Para 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Asterjadhi teaches further comprising transmitting a request for the interference information, wherein the interference information is obtained in response to the request (Para 138).
Regarding Claim 3, Asterjadhi teaches further comprising: receiving one or more interference parameters from one or more shared APs of a multi-access point coordination group; and transmitting the one or more interference parameters to a controller (Para 138-139).
Regarding Claim 9, Asterjadhi teaches wherein performing the resource allocation comprises reallocating one or more resource units (RUs) being used for the multi-access point communication (Para 199).
Regarding Claim 10, Asterjadhi teaches wherein the one or more RUs are reallocated when at least one of the frequencies of occurrence of the interference is above a first threshold or the duration of the interference is above a second threshold (Para 137).
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further Asterjadhi teaches a system (Fig. 12 Unit 1200) comprising a memory (Fig. 12 Unit 1230); and a processor (fig. 12 Unit 1240) communicatively coupled to the memory (Para 205, These components may be in electronic communication via one or more buses (e.g., bus 1250)).
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further Asterjadhi teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising computer executable code, which when executed by one or more processors, performs an operation (Para 210, the memory 1230 may include RAM and ROM. The memory 1230 may store computer-readable, computer-executable code 12 35 including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform various functions).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi et al. Pub. No. US 20200076519 A1 in view of Durand et al. Pub. No. US 20060182064 A1 and further in view of Sun et al. Pub. No. US 20220085910 A1
Regarding Claim 4, Asterjadhi and Durand does not specifically teach wherein performing the resource allocation comprises dynamically puncturing one or more resource units (RUs) being used for the multi-access point communication.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches the dynamic punctured channel information 604 may be carried in one or more non-legacy PPDUs transmitted by the STA 610 to the AP 620. For example, U-SIG may include a bandwidth and punctured information subfield having a value which represents a channel puncturing pattern associated with the PPDU. In some aspects, the dynamic punctured channel information 604 may be carried in U-SIG. For example, the information in the bandwidth and punctured information subfield of U-SIG may be used to convey the dynamic punctured channel information 604 i.e., dynamically puncturing one or more resource units (RUs) being used for the multi-access point communication (Para 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Asterjadhi with the method of Durand and further in view of Sun so as to allow wireless communication device to improve or maximize its throughput by utilizing more of the available spectrum (see Sun Para 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Asterjadhi and Durand does not specifically teach wherein performing the resource allocation comprises statically puncturing one or more resource units (RUs) being used for the multi-access point communication.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches the AP 620 may transmit a puncturing mode indication 603 to each device in its BSS indicating which, if any, of the punctured channel control mode are supported by the BSS. For example, puncturing mode indication 603 may include two or more bits that can be used to indicate whether the BSS supports the first mode, the second mode, or neither of the modes (the BSS does not support punctured channel control). In some aspects, the puncturing mode indication 603 may be carried in one or more management frames broadcast or transmitted by the AP 620 to the STA 610. Example suitable management frames include beacon frames, probe response frames, and association response frames, among other examples. In some implementations, the AP 620 may add the two or more bits to a non-legacy (or EHT) capability element of a management frame. Thus, as shown in FIG. 6, the puncturing mode indication 603 may be transmitted together with the static punctured channel information 602 in the same management frame i.e., performing the resource allocation comprises statically puncturing one or more resource units (RUs) being used for the multi-access point communication (Para 79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Asterjadhi with the method of Durand and further in view of Sun so as to allow wireless communication device to improve or maximize its throughput by utilizing more of the available spectrum (see Sun Para 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Asterjadhi and Durand does not specifically teach wherein the one or more RUs are statically punctured for a predetermined period of time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches that by providing static punctured channel information to each device in a given BSS, aspects of the present disclosure may ensure that TXOP holders (and TXOP responders) avoid transmitting wireless communications on portions of a wireless channel that are likely to encounter significant interference. For example, a TXOP holder may puncture one or more subchannels of the wireless channel when transmitting data to a TXOP responder, thereby avoiding interference on the punctured subchannels while still utilizing the remainder of the available spectrum. Aspects of the present disclosure recognize that some channel conditions are likely to change over time, and that the channel conditions perceived by the TXOP holder may be different than the channel conditions perceived by the TXOP responder. For example, the TXOP holder and TXOP responder can each detect which subchannels are occupied at any given time, for example, by performing a clear channel assessment (CCA) on the wireless channel. By providing dynamic punctured channel information to the TXOP responder, the TXOP holder may dynamically update the subchannels to be avoided based on current channel conditions at the time of transmission. By providing additional punctured channel information to the TXOP holder, the TXOP responder may further update the subchannels to be avoided based on current channel conditions at either end of the communication link i.e., the one or more RUs are statically punctured for a predetermined period of time (Para 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Asterjadhi with the method of Durand and further in view of Sun so as to allow wireless communication device to improve or maximize its throughput by utilizing more of the available spectrum (see Sun Para 4).
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 in combination of claim 8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference fail to teach the limitation of “wherein the one or more RUs are dynamically punctured when at least one of the frequency of occurrence of the interference is below a first threshold or the duration of the interference is below a second threshold; and wherein the one or more RUs are statically punctured when at least one of the frequency of occurrence of the interference is above a first threshold or the duration of the interference is above a second threshold”. These limitation in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that claim 1-10 and 20 stand rejected under because the rejection of Applicant's claims under Section 101 should be reversed under the first prong of Step 2A of the USPTO Guidelines because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and suggest that the amended claims are directed to interference aware resource allocation for multi-access point wireless communication. Applicant submits that several elements of the amended claims, including "performing resource allocation for the multi-AP communication, based on the interference information" and "participating, based on the resource allocation, in the multi-AP communication with a multi-AP coordination group" cannot be performed mentally. Instead, these elements involve the coordination operation of access points participating in a shared wireless communication and involve execution of wireless transmissions governed by radio protocols. Thus, it follows the aforementioned features do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind, nor with pen and paper. However, examiner disagrees and would like to bring it to the attention of applicant that after current amendment, claim still falls under abstract idea because according to MPEP grouping of abstract idea are defined as Mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes. Just by adding participating based on the resource allocation, which was performed based on obtaining interference information can also fall under mathematical concept where court clearly define See for example Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721 i.e., organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Sec A. Having said that in current claim obtaining information and participating based on that information are often viewed as routine, conventional activities of the computer system and the functional language of performing resource allocation as a generic function step without specific algorithmic constraints, may be label as an abstract idea without an “inventive concept”. The court often categorize such steps i.e., receiving, manipulating and decoding data as a mental processes or mathematical concepts that generic computer has long been used to perform. To overcome the abstract, the claim must provide a technical improvement to computer or network functionality. For example if applicant add combine limitation from claims 5 and 8 i.e., wherein the one or more RUs are dynamically punctured when at least one of the frequency of occurrence of the interference is below a first threshold or the duration of the interference is below a second threshold; and wherein the one or more RUs are statically punctured when at least one of the frequency of occurrence of the interference is above a first threshold or the duration of the interference is above a second threshold then it may be patent eligible. For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that with regards to claim 1, Applicant submits Asterjadhi and Durand, whether considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest at least "the interference information comprises at least one of an indication of a frequency of occurrence of interference with the multi-AP communication or an indication of a duration of the interference with the multi-AP communication," as recited in claim 1. However, examiner disagree and bring it to the attention of the applicant that during patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111. Further to that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Having said that Asterjadhi teaches AP 105-a may determine whether to share a transmission opportunity (TxOP) with one or more neighbor APs 105 (not shown) in a multi-AP coordinated transmission. In such examples, AP 105-a may use interference measurements to determine whether to share the TxOP with the one or more neighbor APs 105. If AP 105-a determines to share the TxOP with one or more neighbor APs 105, AP 105-a may also use the interference measurements to determine which RUs of the TxOP to allocate to the one or more neighbor APs 105. In such cases, it may be desirable to determine one or more of the following factors: what interference the neighbor AP 105 would cause by simultaneously transmitting during the TxOP, what interference STAs 115 not associated with AP 105-a might cause to STAs 115-a and 115-b, what interference AP 105-a might cause to the neighbor AP 105, or what interference STA 115-a or STA 115-b may cause when sending transmissions to AP 105-a i.e., i.e., obtaining interference information associated with at least one device. Further to that a neighbor AP 105 or one or more STAs 115 that are not associated with AP 105-a may be included in the first set. One or more AP 105 and one or more STAs 115 may be instructed, in the first message to the first set of STAs 115, to send an uplink transmission. AP 105-b may receive the feedback report from the second set of STAs. Additionally or alternatively, one or more AP 105 or one or more STAs that are not associated with AP 105-a may be included in the second set. By including neighboring APs 105 or unassociated STAs 115 in the first set of STAs 115 or the second set of STAs 115, AP 105-a can use the received interference measurements to determine a) which, if any, neighboring APs 105 are candidates for a multi-AP coordinated transmission during a TxOP owned by AP 105-a, and b) which RUs of the shared TxOP to allocate to the one or more neighboring APs 105 for the multi-AP coordinated transmission during the TxOP i.e., interfering with multi-acess point communication (Para 138-139). Asterjadhi teaches that the transmit power for each of the STAs 115 in the first set of STAs 115 are transmitted at the same or similar transmit power levels, no one STA 115 will transmit at a transmit level that is high enough to overwhelm (e.g., cause interference to) a neighboring RU. Thus, it may be desirable for AP 105-a to solicit and receive improved information regarding inter-station interference, and to generate a radio frequency (RF) map indicating which STAs 115 interfere with which other STAs 115. Such information may be used to group STAs 115 into one or more sets, or to regroup current sets of STAs based on current interference information. AP 105-a may more efficiently manage a network and decrease interference by soliciting and utilizing improved interference information regarding STAs 115 in geographic coverage area 120-a, as described in greater detail with respect to FIGS. 2-8 which can be read as the interference information comprises at least one of an indication of a frequency of occurrence of interference with the multi-AP communication or an indication of a duration of the interference with the multi-AP communication (Para 136). However, Durand teaches from Fig. 1 and Para 16 Fig. 1 and Para 16, that after gathering multiple data points across a sample window 306, parallel processes are executed to calculate interference signal duration and period i.e., indication of a frequency of occurrence of interference with the multi-access point communication. Interference period is determined by identifying a maximum energy point ("peak") 308 in a window and then determining the time between that peak and a corresponding adjacent peak of similar power. Pulse duration may be calculated by finding the first samples on both sides of the peak that drop to the measurement noise floor on each side of the peak i.e., an indication of a duration of the interference. For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nayak et al. Pub. No. US 20240314682 A1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR MULTI-AP COORDINATION IN WIRELESS NETWORKS
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647