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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 19 May 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 6 and 27 are canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-26 and 28-33 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first states: “Applicant respectfully submits that Xia fails to teach or suggest "transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a first frame that is configured to allow, during a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) shared with a second wireless node, a third wireless node to transmit, wherein a duration of the shared portion of the TXOP is less than a duration of the TXOP, and wherein the first frame comprises scheduling information indicating a total duration of the shared portion of the TXOP" as recited in claim 1.” To support this position, Applicant states “However, Xia fails to teach transmitting the CTS-frame configured to allow, during a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) shared with a second wireless node, a third wireless node to transmit, wherein the CTS-frame also includes scheduling information indicating a total duration of the shared portion of the TXOP.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. The Office first notes that the claim language does not further limit the manner in which the first frame “allows…a third wireless node to transmit” (i.e., via any specified format, content, or structure of the message). As such, the Office submits that Xia’s disclosure (as described in the cited paragraphs and figures in the rejection), where the station is able to transmit based on receipt of the CTS-share message, indicates that the first frame “allows” the station to transmit, absent further limitation in the claim language. The Office further notes that the manner in which the scheduling information “indicates a total duration of the shared portion of the TXOP” is not further limited (i.e., via any specified format, content, or structure as to how the total duration is “indicated”). To this end, a broadest reasonable interpretation could encompass the information provided as part of the NAV provided in the CTS-Share frame duration field (paragraphs 0189 and 191 – the TXOP holder schedules channel access time and duration for each participant in the shared TXOP; Figure 71 and paragraph 0473 – the CTS-share frame comprises a duration field with NAV information for the TXOP). As further described in cited paragraph 0191 of Xia, the station starts UL PPDU transmissions using the assigned time duration. For these reasons, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xia et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0174732), hereinafter Xia.
Regarding Claim 1, Xia discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a first wireless node (Figure 12 and paragraphs 0167-0170 – the station can be configured to perform the functions of an AP)), comprising:
at least one transceiver (Figure 12, RF circuit 404 and paragraph 0169)
at least one processor (Figure 12 – CPU 398);
at least one memory configured to store instructions executable by the at least one processor (Figure 12 – RAM 400 and paragraph 0168) to cause the apparatus to:
transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a first frame (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166) that is configured to:
allow, during a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) shared with a second wireless node (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166 – the AP(12) sends a CTS-share message to STA3(18) for TXOP sharing; Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing), a third wireless node to transmit (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166 – both STA1(14) and STA2(16) receive the CTS-share and are able to transmit in the TXOP sharing phase; Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing),
wherein a duration of the shared portion of the TXOP is less than a duration of the TXOP (Figure 11C and paragraph 0166 – each station uses a respective smaller portion of the TXOP sharing phase 374 (e.g., TXOP times 380 and 382 for STA1 and STA2, respectively); Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing), and
wherein the first frame comprises scheduling information indicating a total duration of the shared portion of the TXOP (paragraphs 0189 and 191 – the TXOP holder schedules channel access time and duration for each participant in the shared TXOP); and
perform one or more actions during the shared portion of the TXOP (paragraph 0191 – the non-AP STAs sharing the TXOP start uplink PPDU transmissions using the assigned time duration).
Claim 30 comprises the same limitations as Claim 1, claimed as a method. Therefore, Claim 30 is rejected using the same rationale as presented above regarding Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23, Xia discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a second wireless node (Figure 12 and paragraphs 0167-0170 – wireless station hardware configuration), comprising:
at least one transceiver (Figure 12, RF circuit 404 and paragraph 0169)
at least one processor (Figure 12 – CPU 398); and
at least one memory configured to store instructions executable by the at least one processor (Figure 12 – RAM 400 and paragraph 0168) to cause the apparatus to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, a first frame (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166) that is configured to allow, during a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) shared with a second wireless node by a first wireless node (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166 – the AP(12) sends a CTS-share message to STA3(18) for TXOP sharing; Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing), a third wireless node to transmit (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166 – both STA1(14) and STA2(16) receive the CTS-share and are able to transmit in the TXOP sharing phase; Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing),
wherein a duration of the shared portion of the TXOP is less than a duration of the TXOP (Figure 11C and paragraph 0166 – each station uses a respective smaller portion of the TXOP sharing phase 374 (e.g., TXOP times 380 and 382 for STA1 and STA2, respectively); Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing), and
wherein the first frame comprises scheduling information indicating a total duration of the shared portion of the TXOP (paragraphs 0189 and 191 – the TXOP holder schedules channel access time and duration for each participant in the shared TXOP); and
perform one or more actions during the shared portion of the TXOP (paragraph 0191 – the non-AP STAs sharing the TXOP start uplink PPDU transmissions using the assigned time duration).
Regarding Claim 2, Xia discloses the first frame is configured to at least one of: set a first network allocation vector (NAV) of a first type during the shared portion of the TXOP, wherein the first NAV allows the third wireless node to transmit during the shared TXOP (paragraphs 0189 and 191 – the TXOP holder schedules channel access time and duration for each participant in the shared TXOP; Figure 71 and paragraph 0473 – the CTS-share frame comprises a duration field with NAV information for the TXOP), or set a second NAV of a second type for the fourth wireless node, wherein the second NAV prevents transmission from the fourth wireless node during the shared portion of the TXOP (Note: the limitation is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 3, Xia discloses the scheduling information is for at least the second wireless node (paragraphs 0189 and 191 – the TXOP holder schedules channel access time and duration for each participant in the shared TXOP).
Regarding Claims 4 and 24, Xia discloses the scheduling information indicates at least one of: when at least the second wireless node is allowed to transmit (paragraphs 0189 and 191 – the TXOP holder schedules channel access time and duration for each participant in the shared TXOP); or when at least the second wireless node is to defer channel access (as seen in Figures 11C and 14, each station utilizes a portion of the shared TXOP at respective non-overlapping times, thereby deferring channel access).
Regarding Claim 5, Xia discloses the scheduling information indicates when a fourth wireless node is to defer its channel access (as seen in Figures 11C and 14, each station utilizes a portion of the shared TXOP at respective non-overlapping times, thereby deferring channel access).
Regarding Claim 7, Xia discloses the scheduling information indicates, for each of one or more wireless nodes including at least the second wireless node, a minimum duration that a first wireless node intends to share the portion of the TXOP with that wireless node (Figure 66 and paragraphs 0456-0459 – the allocation control subfield of the TXOP shareability element indicates specific allocation start and duration, including a count-down that can be used to offset each respective stations access).
Regarding Claim 8, Xia discloses the first frame is also configured to trigger the shared portion of the TXOP (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166 – the AP(12) sends a CTS-share message to STA3(18) for TXOP sharing; Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing).
Regarding Claim 11, Xia discloses the first frame comprises a clear to send (CTS) frame (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166 – the AP(12) sends a CTS-share message to STA3(18) for TXOP sharing; Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing).
Regarding Claim 15, Xia discloses the first frame has a first address set to an address associated with the second wireless node (Figure 71 and paragraph 0471 – the CTS-share frame comprises a recipient address field).
Regarding Claim 16, Xia discloses the first address comprises a receive address (RA) (Figure 71 and paragraph 0471 – the CTS-share frame comprises a recipient address field).
Regarding Claim 22, Xia discloses the apparatus is configured as an access point (AP) (Figure 12 and paragraphs 0167-0170 – the station can be configured to perform the functions of an AP).
Regarding Claim 26, Xia discloses the first frame at least one of: comprises a clear to send (CTS) frame (Figure 11C and paragraphs 0162 and 0165-0166 – the AP(12) sends a CTS-share message to STA3(18) for TXOP sharing; Figure 14 illustrates an example embodiment of the TXOP sharing); or has a first address set to an address associated with the second wireless node (Figure 71 and paragraph 0471 – the CTS-share frame comprises a recipient address field).
Regarding Claim 29, Xia discloses the apparatus is configured as a wireless station (Figure 12 and paragraphs 0167-0170 – wireless station hardware configuration).
Regarding Claim 32, Xia discloses the first frame comprises: a first field indicating a duration of the shared portion of the TXOP (paragraphs 0189 and 191 – the TXOP holder schedules channel access time and duration for each participant in the shared TXOP); and a second field indicating a duration for setting a network allocation vector (NAV) (Figure 71 and paragraph 0471 – the CTS-share frame comprises a duration field containing NAV information for CSMA/CA channel access).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Ryu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0107604), hereinafter Ryu.
Regarding Claim 9, Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. Xia further discloses shared portions of TXOPs and at least one transceiver, as described in the rejection of Claim 1. However, Xia does not disclose transmitting, via the at least one transceiver, a second frame configured to trigger the shared TXOP. In an analogous art, Ryu discloses transmitting, via the at least one transceiver, a second frame configured to trigger the shared TXOP (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein a second trigger frame 1016 is sent by shared AP2 to trigger STA2 transmission during the shared TXOP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Xia and Ryu further discloses the first frame is transmitted before the second frame (Ryu at Figure 10, MU-RTS-TXS 1012 is transmitted prior to the second trigger frame 1016). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Regarding Claim 12, Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. Xia further discloses shared portions of TXOPs and at least one transceiver, as described in the rejection of Claim 1. However, Xia does not disclose determin(ing) whether the first frame was successfully received by the second wireless node, wherein the one or more actions depend on the determination (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein the AP receives a CTS 1014 in response to the MU-RTS-TXS). In an analogous art, Ryu discloses determin(ing) whether the first frame was successfully received by the second wireless node, wherein the one or more actions depend on the determination (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein the AP receives a CTS 1014 in response to the MU-RTS-TXS). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Xia and Ryu further discloses receiving, via the at least one transceiver, a response frame from the second wireless node, wherein the determination of the first frame was successfully received by the second wireless node is based on the response frame (Ryu at Figure 10 and paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein the AP receives a CTS 1014 in response to the MU-RTS-TXS). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Regarding Claim 17, Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as described above. However, Xia does not disclose the RA is set to an address associated with a group to which the second wireless node belongs. In an analogous art, Ryu discloses the RA is set to an address associated with a group to which the second wireless node belongs (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein the MU-RTS-TXS frame has a receive address of the Shared AP2 which is part of a multi-AP coordination group). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Xia and Ryu further discloses the instructions stored in the memory and executable by the at least one processor further cause the apparatus to at least one of: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, an indication of at least one of the address associated with the group or one or more identifiers of one or more wireless nodes that belong to the group (Ryu at paragraph 0075, wherein AP1 generates a MAC control frame comprising more than one shared AP’s addresses/identifiers (e.g., BSS colors or least significant bits of BSSIDs); or receive, via the at least one transceiver, a frame requesting an address to be used for setting an RA, wherein the RA of at least one of the first frame or a second frame is set to the requested address (claimed alternative limitation is met by the preceding mapping). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Regarding Claim 21, Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. Xia further discloses subsets of the shared portion of the TXOP (as shown in Figures 11C and 14, each of the stations utilizes a subset of the shared portion of the TXOP in non-overlapping portions). However, Xia does not disclose Ryu the first frame is further configured to at least one of: prevent communication between the second wireless node and the third wireless node during a subset of the shared portion of the TXOP; or allow communication between the second wireless node and the third wireless node during another subset of the shared portion of the TXOP. In an analogous art, Ryu discloses the first frame is further configured to at least one of: prevent communication between the second wireless node and the third wireless node during a subset of the shared portion of the TXOP (claimed alternative limitation met by proceeding mapping); or allow communication between the second wireless node and the third wireless node during another subset of the shared portion of the TXOP (Figure 10, wherein the MU-RTS-TXS 1012 allows AP2 and STA2 to communicate during the shared TXOP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Regarding Claim 25, Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 23, as described above. Xia further discloses shared portions of the TXOP, as described above. However, Xia does not disclose receiv(ing), via the at least one transceiver, a second frame configured to trigger the shared portion of the TXOP. In an analogous art, Ryu discloses receiv(ing), via the at least one transceiver, a second frame configured to trigger the shared portion of the TXOP (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein a second trigger frame 1016 is sent by shared AP2 to trigger STA2 transmission during the shared TXOP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Regarding Claim 31, Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Xia does not disclose the first frame is configured to allow the third wireless node to transmit to the second wireless node. In analogous art, Ryu discloses the first frame is configured to allow the third wireless node to transmit to the second wireless node (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0075-0076, wherein UHR non-AP STA2 transmits a trigger based (TB) PPDU to Shared AP2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid interference from other frames in the network (see paragraph 0058 of Ryu).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Ryu, as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Ko et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20240049304), hereinafter Ko. The combination of Xia and Ryu discloses the limitations of Claim 13, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose if the determination indicates the first frame was not successfully received by the second wireless node, the one or more actions comprise transmitting, via the at least one transceiver, at least a third frame configured to at least one of: reset a first network allocation vector (NAV) set by the first frame, reset a second NAV set by the first frame, or convey data to another wireless node. In an analogous art, Ko discloses this. Specifically, resetting the NAV if a CTS is not received in response to a MU-RTS (Figure 25 and paragraph 0315). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia/Ryu and Ko. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve collision avoidance mechanisms in local area networks (paragraph 0081 of Ko).
Claims 19, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Ko.
Regarding Claim 19, Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. Xia further discloses subsets of the shared portion of the TXOP (as shown in Figures 11C and 14, each of the stations utilizes a subset of the shared portion of the TXOP in non-overlapping portions). However, Xia does not disclose at least one of: receiving, via the at least one transceiver, at least a third frame indicating an early termination of the shared portion of the TXOP from the second wireless node; or transmitting, via the at least one transceiver, at least a fourth frame configured to release or return at least a subset of the shared portion of the TXOP. In an analogous art, Ko discloses this. Specifically, Ko discloses a STA with which a TXOP has been shared may stop the sharing of the TXOP by transmitting signaling to request the stop (early termination) of the sharing of the TXOP before an interval previous set in an MU-RTS (paragraph 0334), therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Ko. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve collision avoidance mechanisms in local area networks (paragraph 0081 of Ko).
Regarding Claim 20, as the limitation further limits the non-selected alternative limitation in Claim 19 (“a fourth frame configured to release or return”), Claim 20 is met by the combination of Xia and Ko applied to Claim 19 above.
Regarding Claim 28, Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. Xia further discloses subsets of the shared portion of the TXOP (as shown in Figures 11C and 14, each of the stations utilizes a subset of the shared portion of the TXOP in non-overlapping portions). However, Xia does not disclose at least one of: transmitting, via the at least one transceiver, at least a second frame indicating an early termination of the shared portion of the TXOP by the second wireless node; or receiving, via the at least one transceiver, at least a third frame configured to release or return at least a subset of the shared portion of the TXOP. In an analogous art, Ko discloses this. Specifically, Ko discloses a STA with which a TXOP has been shared may stop the sharing of the TXOP by transmitting signaling to request the stop (early termination) of the sharing of the TXOP before an interval previous set in an MU-RTS (paragraph 0334), therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Ko. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve collision avoidance mechanisms in local area networks (paragraph 0081 of Ko).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Fang (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0287664). Xia discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. Xia further discloses shared portions of TXOPs, as described above. However, Xia does not disclose the first frame is further configured to prevent transmission from a fourth wireless node during the shared portion of the TXOP. In an analogous art, Fang discloses this. Specifically, Fang discloses establishing a TXOP between two stations; however, other stations that receive the RTS and CTS set their NAVs to prevent from sending during the TXOP period (paragraph 0050). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xia and Fang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid collisions between frames being transmitted in the network.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights