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
The amendment to the claims filed on 12/08/2025 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 15 are amended. Claim 17 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed on 12/08/2025 (hereinafter Resp.) have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant’s argument that “[n]either Thakur nor IEEE 802.11-23/293r0 teaches determining that an AP is not a designated lead and waiting for another AP to lead the negotiation” – See Resp.,8:¶2 is persuasive, and the amendment overcomes the §103 rejection over the cited references. However, Cariou et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0417847 (hereinafter Cariou), cited in the previous Office action, teaches the amended limitation as further explained in the present Office action. In addition, Shafin et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0021113 (hereinafter Shafin) discloses restricted TWT schedule for P2P communications specifically using TDLS method disclosed in Thakur et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0139156 (hereinafter Thakur).
Applicant’s argument that “Thakur does not suggest or imply that the direct link could occur using TXOPs on two different channels as now recited in claim 15” – See Resp.,9:¶1 is not persuasive. First, the referenced [¶0037] of Thakur describes only one embodiment for P2P communication between devices associated with two different APs in two BSS-es. The previous Office action, in Regarding Claim 3, at page 15, cites [¶0078] of Thakur, clearly stating that “when the first wireless apparatus is communicating over channels 3 and 6 via the first AP and the second wireless apparatus is communicating over channels 6 and 10 via the second AP, the first wireless apparatus is communicating over channel 3, which is a different channel than channels 6 and 10 with which the second wireless apparatus is communicating over via the second AP.” Second, the limitation “wherein the rTWT schedule comprises a first service period (SP) for performing P2P communication using the first channel during a first TXOP and a second SP for performing P2P communication using the second channel during a second TXOP,” now recited by Amended Claim 15 does not require that the network device is “connected to the AP via a first channel and the peer device is connected to a second AP via a second channel different from the first channel” at all times during the rTWT schedule, i.e., there is no requirement that the peer device remains connected to the second AP via the second channel during the first SP TXOP and that the first device remains connected via the first channel with the first AP during the second SP TXOP. To be sure, dependent Claims 5 and 18 further provide for “a SP pause between the first SP and the second SP to provide for channel switching at the first device and the second device” intimating that the peer devices adjust their TDLS channels for each SP. Furthermore, Thakur provides for a situation where first device is connected to its AP through a first channel but doing P2P traffic with the second device on another channel – See [¶0059] (“While the first AP 110 considers the first STA 120 as being in the power save mode, the first STA may not actually be in the power save mode, but may be in an active mode and engaged in communication with the second STA 150 via a direct link over the other channel associated with the direct link”). The same logic applies to the second device connected to the second AP through a second channel. In addition, the §112 rejection of Claim 3 previous Office action explained how the P2P traffic is identified on a link protected with a rTWT scheduled SP and the argument is fully incorporated to this Office action. In addition to being unpersuasive, the argument against Thakur and/or Thakur in view of IEEE 802.11-23/293r0, Title: "Follow-up on TWT based Multi-AP Coordination," Source: Samsung Research America, March 30, 2023 (hereinafter IEEE 802.11-23/293r0) is also moot over the combination of Thakur with Cariou and Shafin, as further explained in the present Office action.
Claim Objections
Amended Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: "the first second AP" should read "the [[first]] second AP". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Amended Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Amended Claim 1, the limitation requiring that the first AP “waiting, after receiving the P2P communication request, for the second AP to lead the negotiation” is not supported by the present Specification or by the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skills in the art. The limitation requires the second AP to lead the negotiation for a restricted target wait time (rTWT) schedule for P2P communication between the first device and the second device, whereby the negotiation is triggered by a request for the P2P communication received by the first AP from a first device connected to the first AP. A person of ordinary skills in the art would understand that the second AP could not lead that negotiation instance because the first device is connected to the first AP not to the second AP. Therefore, the second AP may lead a negotiation that would allow for P2P communication between the first device and the second device only if the second device requests P2P communication with the first device. In addition, admitting that there is a case when this condition is fulfilled, there is no disclosure as to how the result of this negotiation is delivered as a P2P authorization. To be sure, the Specification discloses that only the first AP provides the P2P authorization to the first device – See, e.g., [¶0031],[¶0033] and further states that “where the AP 120 is not a lead AP, the method 600 proceeds to block 620, where the AP 120 waits for a lead AP to lead a negotiation for P2P communications” – See [¶0030](emphasis added) and Fig. 6, showing that the non-leading AP just waits in step 620 without providing the P2P authorization to the first device to activate P2P communication between the first device and the second device, as required by the claim language. Amended Claim 8 suffers the same deficiency.
Therefore, Amended Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1- 6, 8-13, 15-16, and 18-20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0139156 (hereinafter Thakur) in view of Cariou et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0417847 (hereinafter Cariou) and further in view of Shafin et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0021113 (hereinafter Shafin).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Thakur teaches a method (“Systems, methods, and devices for forming direct links between devices in an extended service set (ESS)” – See [¶0007]; whereby “the ESS may include a first STA in a first BSS that may communicate with a first AP using a first communication channel and a second STA in a second BSS that may communicate with a second AP using a second communication channel” – See [¶0033], whereby each AP “may communicate with one or more STAs 120 (e.g., STAs 120a-b) at any given moment via a downlink or an uplink” – See [¶0029] and Fig. 1) comprising:
receiving, at a first access point (AP) a peer-to-peer (P2P) communication request from a first device connected to the first AP in a first basic service set (BSS) and requesting to communicate with a second device in a second BSS via P2P communication (“The first STA 120 may transmit a setup request 205 (e.g., a TDLS setup request frame) to the second STA 150. The setup request 205 may be transmitted to the second STA 150 via the first AP 110 and the second AP 140” – See [¶0049] and Fig. 2; see also Figure 35-39 example of TDLS discovery in § 35.3.21.2, IEEE P802.11be™:580 infra);
negotiating, with a second AP in the second BSS, a P2P authorization for P2P communication between the first device and the second device (e.g., the channel negotiation for the P2P communication includes “the first channel information 160 may be generated by the first AP 110 and provided to the STA 150a via the AP 140” or “the second channel information 170 may be generated by the AP 140 and provided to the STA 120a via the AP 110” whereby “[t]he channel information 160, 170 may be used to enable (e.g., allow) one or both of the STA 120a and the STA 150a to select an appropriate channel for use when establishing the direct link” – See [¶0040]; generally, “[a] capability of the first wireless apparatus and/or the second wireless apparatus may be determined” – See [¶0080], whereby “selecting the at least one communication channel may include determining whether the second wireless apparatus is capable of communicating over at least one of the one or more first communication channels and/or determining whether the second wireless apparatus is capable of communicating over at least one of the one or more second communication channels” or “selecting the at least one communication channel may include determining whether a particular channel is included in both the one or more first communication channels and the one or more third communication channels and selecting the particular channel as the at least one communication channel” – See [¶0082]); and
providing the P2P authorization to the first device to activate P2P communication between the first device and the second device (“enable (e.g., permit or allow) the STA 120a of the BSS of the AP 110 to form a direct link with the STA 150a of the BSS of the AP 140” – See [¶0036], e.g., “[b]y exchanging the first channel information 160 and/or the second channel information 170 [through AP110 and AP140 negotiation] each of the STA 120a and the STA 150a may be aware of one or more communication channels used and/or accessible to the other STA. Accordingly, the STA 120a and the STA 150a of different BSSs may be able to select a particular channel with which to establish a direct link based on an exchange of at least one of the first channel information 160 and the second channel information 170” – See [¶0044]) and “the STA 150a may use the channel information 160, 170 to select a particular communication channel with which to attempt to establish a direct link” – See [¶0043]).
Although Thakur teaches that “[o]ne or more of the steps of the methods (e.g., processes) may be removed, additional steps may be added, the order of steps changed, or combinations thereof” in the disclosed method – See [¶0105], Thakur does not explicitly teach that the P2P authorization negotiated with a second AP in the second BSS comprises a restricted target wait time (rTWT) schedule and the negotiation further comprises: upon determining that the first AP is not a designated lead AP for negotiating the P2P authorization, waiting, after receiving the P2P communication request, for the second AP to lead the negotiation.
Cariou, including by reference “ISO/IEC/IEEE - International Standard - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Specific requirements for local and metropolitan area networks--Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications,” in ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11:2022(E) , vol., no., pp.1-4382, 26 Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9930960 (hereinafter IEEE 802.11™) and its amendments, e.g., for HE STAs, “IEEE Standard for Information Technology--Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems Local and Metropolitan Area Networks--Specific Requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications Amendment 1: Enhancements for High-Efficiency WLAN,” in IEEE Std 802.11ax-2021 (Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11-2020) , vol., no., pp.1-767, 19 May 2021, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2021.9442429 (hereinafter IEEE P802.11ax™), and for EHT STAs, “IEEE Draft Standard for Information technology— Telecommunications and information exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area networks— Specific requirements; Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications; Amendment 8: Enhancements for extremely high throughput (EHT),” in IEEE P802.11be/D3.0, January 2023 , vol., no., pp.1-999, 1 March 2023 (hereinafter IEEE P802.11be™) – See [¶0025],[¶0069], teaches multi-AP negotiating r-TWT schedules (“access point (AP) configured for multi-AP operation within a group of two or more other APs of a multi-AP group including at least a second AP. The multi-AP group uses restricted target wake time (r-TWT) service periods (SPs) for coordinating communications within the multi-AP group” – See [¶0015]) whereby the Multi-AP operation aims “to improve cooperation between APs that are in the same cooperation group” – See [¶0071], e.g., “a sharing AP that gains a TXOP and accesses the medium will share its TXOP with other shared APs” – See [¶0074], i.e., a “leading” AP “would then assign the time or frequency allocations to the different shared APs and their associated STAs for the TXOP” – See [¶0076].
Cariou, like Thakur, teaches APs in different BSS-es (“where 2 APs are coordinating, they can ensure that the STAs in the center of each BSS . . . can do spatial reuse during specific times” – See [¶0076]) that negotiate the channels used, e.g., during STAs p2p communication (“a Channel Utilization or Channel BW field may be added to the Broadcast TWT parameter set field to be able to control the channels that are used by the AP and its member STAs during the r-TWT SP” – See [¶0082], e.g., to “allow 2 APs to define SPs during which both BSSs will operate with the same 40 MHz BW for example” – See [¶0087] and Fig. 6 wherein “during the r-TWT SPs, time-synchronization functions (TSFs) of the APs and the STAs may be aligned” – See [¶0096], and “embodiments allow two APs 602, 604 to define SPs 621, 623 during which both BSSs will operate with the same 40 MHz BW” – See [¶0099], i.e., STAs allowed to transmit, e.g., P2P traffic over TDLS during the restricted schedule)
Cariou, further teaches negotiating, with a second AP in the second BSS, an authorization comprising a restricted target wait time (rTWT) schedule for communication between the first device and the second device (“prior to transmission of the management frame that includes a r-TWT schedule for communicating within one or more r-TWT SPs, the AP1 may be configured to determine (e.g., negotiate and/or coordinate) the r-TWT schedule with the other APs of the multi-AP group including determining which AP will be the sharing AP (i.e., the AP sharing the TXOP) and which APs will be the shared APs” – See [¶0104] (emphasis added1), whereby, e.g., in a trigger frame, the sharing AP may “use a value of 0 in the Broadcast TWT ID, in order to be able to have an r-TWT schedule that applies to all associated STAs” – See [¶0081] and “during the one or more r-TWT SPs, the AP1 may be configured to communicate uplink (UL) and/or downlink (DL) data with its other associated STAs in accordance with the r-TWT schedule and the AP2 may be configured to communicate with its associated STAs in accordance with the r-TWT schedule” – See [¶0105]) wherein the negotiating comprises:
upon determining that the first AP is not a designated lead AP for negotiating the P2P authorization, waiting, after receiving the P2P communication request, for the second AP to lead the negotiation (in Fig. 7, “when the AP1 may be configured to operate a shared AP and the AP2 may be configured to operate as the sharing AP, the AP1 may be configured to refrain from acquiring the TXOP for the r-TWT SP and wait for the AP2 to acquire a TXOP and share the TXOP with the AP1” – See [¶0103], e.g., in “an EHT Multi-AP group . . . One AP acts as the Master or Coordinator AP, which can reach to other APs” and “controls or coordinates the schedule and transmission among all APs in the group” wherein “[o]ne or more APs act as the Coordinated APs” and “receive control or schedule information from the Coordinator AP, and executes operation instructed by the Coordinator AP” – See [¶0110] and Figs. 8 and 92,3; see also Fig. 10 disclosing “a Multi-AP Group Formation message format” indicating the designated Coordinator AP for the group with a relay capability – See [¶0112], i.e., an AP in the multi-AP group would determine from the Multi-AP Group Formation message whether it is a designated lead AP or not).
Finally, Cariou, like Thakur, teaches the first AP providing the rTWT schedule for when transmissions are allowed to its associated STA (“a management frame is encoded for transmission to stations (STA) associated with the AP1. The management frame may be encoded to include a r-TWT element that includes a r-TWT schedule for communicating within one or more r-TWT SPs” – See [¶0114], whereby “the AP1 may communicate data with its associated STAs during the one or more r-TWT SPs in accordance with the r-TWT schedule and the AP2 may communicate with its associated STAs in accordance with the r-TWT schedule” – See [¶0117]).
Thus, Thakur and Cariou each teaches APs in different BSS-es each communicating with their own associated STA devices and operating to optimize communication across BSS-es, e.g., by negotiating common channels for UL/DL transmissions. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the step of negotiating a rTWT schedule between a sharing AP and a shared AP in two different BSS-es restricting the transmission time/opportunities for the associated STAs, whereby one AP may determine if it is the lead/master/coordinator/sharing AP from a Multi-AP Group Formation message, and if the determination is negative, wait for the lead/master/coordinator/sharing AP to negotiate the parameters of the rTWT schedule, as taught by Cariou, could have been added to or, in the alternative, substitute in for the step of determining the channels for the P2P communication authorized by the two APs in the two BSS disclosed in Thakur4, because both steps are part of a first AP action upon request from a first STA connected with the first AP in the first BSS regarding a second STA connected with the second AP in the second BSS. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art, e.g., through management frames or backhaul communication. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of protecting the P2P transmission established between the two peer STAs in Thakur using the rTWT schedule protection negotiated as part of the P2P authorization for the first STA connected with the first AP in the first BSS to communicated over the negotiated P2P channel(s) with the second STA connected with the second AP in the second BSS, as taught by Cariou, including the advantage of having the sharing AP arbitration of access to shared link between the peer STAs.
However, Cariou, teaching the negotiated rTWT schedule for both UL and DL communications between STAs and APs, does not teach the negotiated P2P authorization comprising a restricted target wait time (rTWT) schedule specifically for P2P communication.
Shafin specifically teaches “restricted TWT schedule and an indication of whether the restricted TWT schedule can be used for P2P communication” – See [¶0009] addressing the problem of “unused portion of the restricted TWT SP for the peer-to-peer link if only latency-sensitive traffic is allowed during the restricted TWT SP” – See [¶0056].
Shafin, like Thakur, teaches that two “APs 101-103 may communicate with each other and with the STAs 111-114 using WI-FI or other WLAN communication techniques. The STAs 111-114 may communicate with each other using peer-to-peer protocols, such as Tunneled Direct Link Setup (TDLS)” – See [¶0063] and Fig.1. Shafin further teaches the negotiated P2P authorization comprising a restricted target wait time (rTWT) schedule specifically for P2P communication (“when announcing a restricted TWT schedule, a TWT scheduling AP may indicate whether the restricted TWT schedule may also be used by TDLS peer STAs” – See [¶0167] and Table 3, and also indicate the P2P channels when “a Restricted TWT TDLS TID Bitmap subfield in a Broadcast TWT Parameter Set field can indicate the TIDs for which TDLS peer STAs can use the corresponding restricted TWT schedule for communication over TDLS link” – See [¶0179], “where a restricted TWT schedule is only for peer-to-peer communication, the restricted TWT scheduling AP sends a Quiet element in its BSS for protecting the restricted TWT service period (SP), and all STAs in the BSS that have established peer-to-peer links can ignore the Quiet element” – See [¶0084] but “if the pair of peer-to-peer STAs are done with transmitting latency-sensitive traffic over the peer-to-peer link before the end of a restricted TWT SP, the pair of STAs send P2P Latency-sensitive Traffic End Notification frames to their associated scheduling AP notifying the AP that their transmissions of latency-sensitive traffic over the peer-to-peer link have ended” – See [¶0088]; see also § 35.8.5.2, IEEE P802.11be™:620, describing quieting STAs during R-TWT SPs).
Thus, Thakur in view of Cariou and Shafin each discloses negotiated rTWT agreements involving a sharing AP and other shared APs and STAs. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the rTWT agreements authorizing P2P communication between two STAs that requested the communication using TDLS procedure, as taught by Shafin, could be substituted in for the negotiated rTWT schedule between a lead/sharing/coordinator AP and a non-lead AP as taught in Thakur in view of Cariou because both provide for Restricted TWT communication between two STAs. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of explicitly authorizing P2P communications as part of the negotiated rTWT agreement and corresponding updates in accordance with the TWT and R-TWT specifications in IEEE 802.11™, as taught by Shafin.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin
Regarding Claim 2, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Thakur further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein first BSS and the second BSS are in a same extended service set (ESS) (“The first AP and the second AP may be included in an extended service set (ESS) and the first BSS may be distinct from the second BSS” – See [¶0077] and Figs. 2 and 3).
Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
Regarding Amended Claim 3, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Thakur further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first device is connected to the first AP via a first channel (“The first channel information may be related to one or more first communication channels the first wireless apparatus is capable of communicating over, and one or more second communication channels the first wireless apparatus is communicating over via the first AP”, e.g., “the first channel information may include the channel information 160 of FIG. 1 and the first wireless apparatus may include any of the STAs 120 of FIGS.1-2” – See [¶0076]) and
the second device is connected to the second AP via a second channel different from the first channel (“The second channel information may be related to one or more third communication channels the second wireless apparatus is capable of communicating over and one or more fourth communication channels the second wireless apparatus is communicating over via the second AP,” whereby “one or more second communication channels of the first wireless apparatus are different than the one or more fourth communication channels of the second wireless apparatus,” e.g., “when the first wireless apparatus is communicating over channels 3 and 6 via the first AP and the second wireless apparatus is communicating over channels 6 and 10 via the second AP, the first wireless apparatus is communicating over channel 3, which is a different channel than channels 6 and 10 with which the second wireless apparatus is communicating over via the second AP” – See [¶0078]).
Cariou further teaches a first and a second SP in a rTWT schedule (“a r-TWT schedule for communicating within one or more r-TWT SPs” – See [¶0094], whereby “the multi-AP group may advertise the same r-TWT schedule with one or more overlapping SPs” to “allow two APs 602, 604 to define SPs 621, 623 during which both BSSs will operate with the same 40 MHz BW” – See [¶0099] and Fig. 6, showing “r-TWT SP 622 during which the AP1 602 may be configured to communicate with its associated STAs concurrently with the AP2 604 communicating with its associated stations communicate over different channels (e.g., different 20 MHz channels)” – See [¶0097] and wherein “the rTWT agreement/element that includes the r-TWT schedule for communicating within one or more r-TWT SPs” comprises “a channel bandwidth field to indicate a bandwidth for use during each of the one or more r-TWT SPs and indicating which BSS channels are to be used” – See [¶0102], e.g., in the first r-TWT SP the first STA may sent P2P traffic through AP1 on the first channel and in the second r-TWT SP the second STA may sent P2P traffic through AP2 on the second channel; see also § 9.4.2.199, IEEE 802.11ax™, referenced by Cariou, showing at page 167, in Figs. 9-686&687, the basic TWT element and its Control field indicating “whether the information included in the TWT element is for the negotiation of parameters of broadcast or individual TWT(s),” at page 169, in Figure 9-687a, an Individual TWT Parameter Set field with a specific TWT channel, and at page 174, disclosing that “[t]he TWT Channel field includes a bitmap that provides the channel that is being negotiated by a STA as a temporary channel during a TWT SP”).
Finally, Shafin further teaches that each of the first and the second rTWT SP is negotiated to protect P2P communication between the first device and the second device (“a restricted TWT scheduling AP allows a restricted TWT schedule to be used by peer-to-peer STAs for communication over the peer-to-peer links, during the corresponding restricted TWT SP” whereby “the AP monitors the peer-to-peer channels over which the peer-to-peer STAs communicate during the restricted TWT SP”– See [¶0112], i.e., each AP knows the association between the channel(s) used for P2P communication and the rTWT SP protecting the P2P communication, e.g., based on the TWT channel field as explained in § 9.4.2.199, IEEE 802.11ax™, supra).
Therefore, Amended Claim 3 is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
Regarding Claim 4, dependent from Amended Claim 3, Thakur further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein when “the selected channel used to establish the direct link between two STAs includes a base channel of a particular STA of the two STAs, the particular STA may exit power save mode with an associated AP, may exchange traffic with the particular AP, may receive one or more beacons, or a combination thereof” – See [¶0066], i.e., each of the first device and the second device may individually negotiate transmissions with their respective APs.
In addition, Cariou also teaches a first channel and a second channel comprised in the negotiated authorization comprising the rTWT schedule (“a Channel Utilization or Channel BW field may be added to the Broadcast TWT parameter set field to be able to control the channels that are used by the AP and its member STAs during the r-TWT SP” – See [¶0082], also including by reference IEEE 802.11ax™, wherein § 9.4.2.199 teaches the TWT channel field of the TWT element using a bitmap to indicate the respective channel between each STA and its associated AP, as explained supra; see also § 35.8.2.2, IEEE 802.11be™, at page 618, describing the rTWT membership setup procedure5 between “[t]he R-TWT scheduling AP and the R-TWT scheduled STA” wherein the STA “should set the Restricted TWT Traffic Info field (see 9.4.2.199 (TWT element)) to identify the TID(s) that carry latency sensitive traffic in DL and UL for the R-TWT membership being set up” on each link/channel between the STA and the AP.
Cariou further teaches two transmit opportunities (TXOP) in two different SPs as part of the negotiated rTWT schedule (“the AP1 may be configured to determine (e.g., negotiate and/or coordinate) the r-TWT schedule with the other APs” – See [¶0104], e.g., by “Coordinated Spatial Reuse, where a sharing AP that gains a TXOP and accesses the medium will share its TXOP with other shared APs, splitting the TXOP in time into multiple allocations,” e.g,, into two rTWT SPs – See [¶0074], whereby a “MultiAP trigger frame . . . would be sent by the sharing AP to the shared APs, this would then assign the time . . . to the different shared APs and their associated STAs for the [shared] TXOP” in accordance with the r-TWT schedule – See [¶0076]; and “all APs of the multi-AP group may advertise the same r-TWT schedule with one or more overlapping SPs” – See [¶0099] whereby each “r-TWT SP may be a multi-AP trigger-enabled TWT SP,” i.e., have its own TXOP – See [¶0101]).
Finally, Shafin further teaches that each of the first and the second TXOP is for P2P traffic between the first device and the second device (“if Trigger frames are addressed to the restricted TWT scheduled STA by the restricted TWT scheduling AP in a trigger-enabled restricted TWT SP that allows peer-to-peer communication during the restricted TWT SP, then the restricted TWT scheduling AP shall ensure that at least the first trigger frame sent during the restricted TWT SP is an MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame with TXOP Sharing Mode subfield set to 2” – See [¶0140] and “the restricted TWT scheduling AP should not allocate TXOP, through MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame with TXOP Sharing Mode subfield set to 2, to the restricted TWT scheduled STA that exceeds the restricted TWT SP duration” – See [¶0141]; furthermore in “a trigger-enabled restricted TWT SP that allows only peer-to-peer communication during the restricted TWT SP ( e.g., by setting the Peer-to-Peer subfield to 1), all the trigger frame sent during the restricted TWT SP are MU-RTS TXS Trigger frames with TXOP Sharing Mode subfield set to 2” – See [¶0142]), whereby the first allocated TXOP, through MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame with TXOP Sharing Mode subfield set to 2 is by AP1 on the first channel and the second is by AP2 on the second channel, as explained in Cariou, supra.
The combination of Thakur in view of Cariou and Shafin to provide the P2P authorization comprising a rTWT schedule for the P2P communication is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention motivated by the standardization work in IEEE 802.11 be/bn workgroups regarding P2P communication set up, specifically TDLS, with a rTWT schedule and Triggered TXOP Sharing – See, e.g., IEEE 802.11-23/0353r0 in Note 5, supra (stating, at page 4, “TDLS, rTWT and TXS mechanisms can work in combination” and further disclosing amendments to TDLS Action field formats).
Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
Regarding Claim 5, dependent from Claim 4, Thakur further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the P2P authorization, e.g., channel negotiation between the peer devices, further comprises channel switching (“if the first STA 120 does not support the current operating channel of the second STA 150 but the second STA 150 supports the current operating channel of the first STA 120, then the second STA 150 switches to the operating channel of the first STA 120” and vice-versa – See [¶0054] and “the direct link may be periodically switched between the first base channels of the first STA 120 and the second base channels the second STA 150” – See [¶0064]). However, Thakur does not teach a SP pause between the first SP and the second SP to provide for channel switching at the first device and the second device.
Cariou teaches a SP pause between the first SP and the second SP to provide for channel switching at the first device and the second device (“the definition of specific rules on the client side in order to delay/pause its channel access from the start of the TWT SP until a defined point in time (time can be indicated in the TWT element or can be standardized or can be negotiated between the AP and STAs) is added” – See [¶0089], i.e., a SP pause may be added using multi-AP trigger frame).
Therefore Claim 5 is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
Regarding Amended Claim 6, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Thakur teaches that one AP leads the determination of the channels(s) for P2P communication (“A capability of the first wireless apparatus and/or the second wireless apparatus may be determined . . . and at least one communication channel for communication may be selected based on the first channel information and the second channel information” – See [¶0080] and “selecting the at least one communication channel may include determining whether the second wireless apparatus is capable of communicating over at least one of the one or more first communication channels and/or determining whether the second wireless apparatus is capable of communicating over at least one of the one or more second communication channels” – See [¶0082], whereby “the one or more first communication channels that the first wireless apparatus is capable of communicating over may include channels 1-10 and the one or more second communication channels that the first wireless apparatus is communicating over via the first AP” – See [¶0076]). However, Thakur does not teach the second AP is a designated lead AP6 for negotiating the P2P authorization that includes the rTWT.
Cariou teaches several ways the second AP becomes a designated lead AP for negotiating the P2P authorization: (1) designated in the rTWT element: “a field may be added to indicate if the AP sending the r-TWT element will be the one acting as the sharing AP during the TWT SP” – See [¶0088]; (2) negotiated: “prior to transmission of the management frame that includes a r-TWT schedule for communicating within one or more r-TWT SPs, the AP1 may be configured to determine (e.g., negotiate and/or coordinate) the r-TWT schedule with the other APs of the multi-AP group including determining which AP will be the sharing AP (i.e., the AP sharing the TXOP) and which APs will be the shared APs” – See [¶0104]; and (3) announced in a multi-AP group: “methods to enable EHT Multi-AP group formation within a Multi-AP network” whereby the designated coordinator/lead AP is announced in a “Multi-AP Group Formation message” – See [¶¶0112-13] and Fig. 10.
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
Regarding Amended Claim 8, Thakur teaches an access point (AP), comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising instructions which, when executed on the processor, performs an operation (as shown in Fig. 7, “[t]he wireless device 702 may include the APs 110, 140 or the STAs 120, 150 of FIGS. 1-2” –See [¶0107], wherein “[t]he processor 704 may perform logical and arithmetic operations based on program instructions stored within the memory 706 or another memory (not shown) external to the wireless device 702. The instructions in the memory 706 may be executable to implement the methods described herein, such as the methods of FIGS. 3-6” – See [¶0109]) the operation comprising: each step of the method of Amended Claim 1, recited with the same language. Because Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin, Amended Claim 8 is also obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
Regarding Claims 9-13, dependent from Amended Claim 8, each of the Claims 9 -13, as amended, recites the same limitations as recited in the Claims 2-6, respectively, as amended, using the same language. Because each of the Claims 2-6 and 8, as amended, is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin, Claims 9-13, as amended, are obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
Regarding Claim 15, Thakur further teaches a method, comprising:
detecting, at a network device associated with a first basic service set (BSS), a peer device within peer-to-peer (P2P) connection distance is associated with a second BSS different from the first BSS (“the ESS may include a first STA in a first BSS that may communicate with a first AP using a first communication channel and a second STA in a second BSS that may communicate with a second AP using a second communication channel” – See [¶0032], and “the STA 120a may discover (e.g., using one or more discovery protocols described herein) other STAs in the same ESS as the AP 110, which the STA 120a is associated with. After discovering the other STAs, the STA 120a (e.g., an initiator STA) may select a particular discovered STA (e.g., a peer STA), such as the second STA 150a to setup the direct link” – See [¶0042]; i.e., STAs within P2P communication distance discover each other; furthermore, “[t]he discovery process used by the first STA 120 may be different than a TDLS discovery process. For example, the discovery process may utilize a discovery mechanism that includes a layer 2 protocol ( e.g. a data link layer protocol), a layer 3 protocol (e.g., a network layer protocol), or a combination thereof” – See [¶0046] or “[t]he decision by the first STA 120 to establish the direct link with the second STA 150 may be made based on an application, such as a higher layer application ( e.g., a file sharing application or an audio visual application), running on the second STA 150. The first STA 120 may have received information associated with the application of the second STA 150 as part of, or in conjunction with, the discovery mechanism associated with the discovery Process” – See [¶0047])
transmitting a P2P request, e.g., a TDLS setup request, to an access point (AP) of the first BSS (“The first STA 120 may transmit a setup request 205 (e.g., a TDLS setup request frame) to the second STA 150. The setup request 205 may be transmitted to the second STA 150 via the first AP 110 and the second AP 140” and “may include the first channel information associated with the first STA 120 and the second STA may store the first channel information for later use”– See [¶0049]);
receiving, at the network device from the AP, a P2P/ TDLS authorization (“the STA 120a and the STA 150a may engage in a direct link setup procedure (e.g., transmit and receive one or more messages) via one or both of the AP 110 and the AP 140” – See [¶0042] because permission is required to “enable (e.g., permit or allow) the STA 120a of the BSS of the AP 110 to form a direct link with the STA 150a of the BSS of the AP 140” – See [¶0036], and “[t]he second STA 150 may transmit a setup response 215 ( e.g., a TDLS response message) to the first STA 120. In a particular embodiment, the response message 215 may include a "SUCCESS" code. The setup response may be transmitted to the second STA 150 via the first AP 110 and the second AP 140” whereby “the second channel information associated with the second STA 150 and the first STA 120 may store the second channel information for later use” – See [¶0051]) and
communicating with the peer device via P2P communications (“the first STA 120 or the second STA 150 may enter power save (e.g., a power save mode) with the first AP 110 and the second AP 140 . . . but may be in an active mode and engaged in communication . . . via a direct link” – See [¶0059])
wherein the network device is connected to the AP via a first channel and the peer device is connected to a second AP via a second channel different from the first channel (“when the second wireless apparatus is capable of communicating over channels 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 and the first wireless apparatus is communicating over channels 3 and 6 via the first AP, at least one of channels 3 and 6 may be selected as the at least one communication channel” – See [¶0082]; or “[t]he channel may be selected based on the channel information, such as information regarding the communication channel(s) that the first STA and the second STA are currently operating on and/or capable of operating on” with their respective APs – See [¶0092]; see also explanation for the limitation the first device is connected to the first AP via a first channel and the second device is connected to the second AP via a second channel different from the first channel in Regarding Amended Claim 3, supra).
Thakur does not teach: (1) the P2P authorization comprises a restricted target wait time (rTWT) schedule and (2) wherein the rTWT schedule comprises a first service period (SP) for performing P2P communication using the first channel during a first TXOP and a second SP for performing P2P communication using the second channel during a second TXOP, and that the P2P communication happens under the rTWT schedule.
Cariou teaches a restricted target wait time (rTWT) schedule negotiated between APs associated with the first and the second BSS (“the AP1 may be configured to determine (e.g., negotiate and/or coordinate) the r-TWT schedule with the other APs of the multi-AP group including determining which AP will be the sharing AP (i.e., the AP sharing the TXOP)” – See [¶0104] over “a primary channel for a first BSS (BSS 1) that includes the AP1 and its associated STAs” and another “primary channel for a second BSS (BSS2) that includes the AP2 and its associated STAs” – See [¶0098]) and Shafin further teaches the P2P authorization comprising the restricted target wait time (rTWT) schedule (“AP1 announces a restricted TWT schedule (Negotiation Type subfield set to 2), Schedule A, in its BSS and indicates that this schedule is for peer-to-peer communication” – See [¶0083]).
The combination of Thakur in view of Cariou and Shafin to provide the P2P authorization comprising a rTWT schedule for the P2P communication is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention motivated by the standardization work in IEEE 802.11 be/bn workgroups regarding P2P communication set up, specifically TDLS, with a rTWT schedule and Triggered TXOP Sharing – See, e.g., IEEE 802.11-23/0353r0 in Note 5, supra (stating, at page 4, “TDLS, rTWT and TXS mechanisms can work in combination” and further disclosing amendments to TDLS Action field formats). In addition, the limitation wherein the rTWT schedule comprises a first service period (SP) for performing P2P communication using the first channel during a first TXOP and a second SP for performing P2P communication using the second channel during a second TXOP is also obvious as explained in Regarding Claim 4, supra, wherein it was first shown that the P2P authorization comprises a rTWT schedule with two SPs, and then explained how each SP contains a TXOP for P2P traffic between the peer devices, the first TXOP using a first channel and the second TXOP a second channel.
In sum, Amended Claim 15 is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and Shafin
Regarding Claims 16, and 18-20, as amended, dependent from Amended Claim 15, each claim recites the same limitations as Claims 2, and 4-6, respectively, as amended, using substantially the same language, wherein the first device is the network device, the peer device is the second device and the first AP is the lead AP. Because each of the Claims 2, 4-6, and 15, as amended, is obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin, Claims 16, and 18-20, as amended, are also obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
In sum, Claims 1- 6, 8-13, 15-16, and 18-20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin as applied to Amended Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Cariou, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0276357 (hereinafter Cariou2).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, dependent from Amended Claims 1 and 8, respectively, they recite the same limitation applied to the same negotiated P2P authorization. Thakur teaches wherein negotiating the P2P authorization comprises inspecting a shared P2P device list for the second device (“The decision by the first STA 120 to establish the direct link with the second STA 150 may be made based on an application, such as a higher layer application (e.g., a file sharing application or an audio visual application), running on the second STA 150. The first STA 120 may have received information associated with the application of the second STA 150 as part of, or in conjunction with, the discovery mechanism associated with the discovery process” – See [¶0047], i.e., the first STA may have already gathered a list of devices associated with the application as part of the discovery process, in particular because “system controller 130 may also provide and/or enable access to other systems, such as other networks or the Internet” and although the controller “may be coupled to and provide coordination and control for the APs 110, 140” – See [¶0032], “the setup request 205 may also be transmitted to the second STA 150 via a system controller, such as the system controller 130” – See [¶0049]; therefore a person of ordinary skills in the art would understand that the system controller may have a shared P2P device list and verify that the second STA/device is on that list before or as part of the P2P authorization negotiation).
While Thakur further teaches that “[t]he first wireless apparatus may store the received second channel at the memory associated with the first wireless apparatus” – See [¶0078], therefore facilitating the determination of the channels for P2P communication, Cariou further teaches the negotiation of a rTWT schedule, and Shafin teaches the rTWT schedule is for the P2P communication between peer devices, Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin does not teach upon determining the second device is in the shared P2P list, selecting a predefined P2P authorization as the P2P authorization.
Cariou2 teaches “setting up a TWT agreement between a requester STA, e.g., a STA implemented by device 140, and a responder STA, e.g., a STA implemented by device 102” – See [¶0084] and Fig. 1, whereby “the TWT agreement may define a plurality of TWT Service Periods (SPs) for the requester STA” – See [¶0088] and “device 102, device 140, and/or device 160 may be configured to implement one or more operations of a TWT mechanism, which may be configured to support negotiating and/or imposing a TWT agreement, e.g., a P2P TWT agreement and/or any other TWT agreement, between a STA and its associated AP” – See [¶0087], whereby a “P2P TWT SP may be requested and/or negotiated by STAs, e.g., according to one or more operations” – See [¶¶0092-92-95]. Furthermore, Cariou2 teaches that once active, the TWT agreement may be (re)used as long as it is agreed and active (“once a P2P TWT agreement is agreed and active, the responder STA, e.g., the AP, may consider, e.g., shall consider, the requester STA, e.g., the non-AP STA, to be in power save mode and doze state, e.g., at the start of the P2P TWT SP defined by the P2P TWT agreement” and “back to its original power management mode and state, e.g., at the end of the P2P TWT SP” – See [¶0099-100], i.e., the P2P TWT agreement is not negotiated each time a P2P SP arrives once it is active and agreed with a responder peer STA).
Cariou2 further teaches upon determining the second device is in the shared P2P list, selecting a predefined P2P authorization as the P2P authorization (the agreed and active P2P TWT agreement, i.e., as part of a negotiated P2P authorization as taught by Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin, may “indicate to the AP, e.g., the infrastructure AP, one or more SPs (P2P SPs), during which the non-AP STA will be unavailable for communication with the AP. For example, the one or more P2P SPs may be utilized by the non-AP STA for P2P operation with another peer STA” – See [¶0104], e.g., the AP knows the peer STA, for example because the peer STA is on a shared P2P device list, and the predefined P2P agreement is used/selected; in addition “controller 154 may be configured to control, trigger, cause, and/or instruct a first STA implemented by device 140, to set up a TWT agreement with a second STA” – See [¶0120]; furthermore, a mechanism is provided “to update and/or modify a P2P TWT agreement, e.g., that has been established with a mode where a responder STA, e.g., a STA implemented by device 102, shall accept the TWT agreement,” i.e., the selected predefined P2P agreement/authorization – See [¶0116], “without a need to repeat an exchange of Channel Usage Request and/or Response frames with the responder STA” – See [¶0117], e.g., when the “controller 154 may be configured to allow the first STA implemented by device 140 to transmit the frame to the second STA, for example, based on a determination that a capability indication from the second STA indicates that the second STA supports the TWT parameter update mode” – See [¶0131]; therefore, once the respondent STA is known to be a peer device under the P2P TWT agreement, the same agreement is reused and even can be modified without the signaling of a (re)negotiation and the operation can happen through a controller that evaluates the peer device under the P2P TWT agreement).
Thus, Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin, and Cariou2, each discloses P2P communication with peer devices using TWT SPs. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the P2P TWT agreements as taught in Cariou2 could be used as predefined P2P authorizations managed and selected, e.g., by a controller, based on the requested P2P communication with a peer device, in combination with a list of P2P devices stored by the controller, as taught in Thakur, because in both cases the controller may receive the request from the first STA to perform P2P communication with a peer STA. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of a technical solution to support setting up a P2P TWT agreement between a requester STA and a responder STA that can be reused based and updated without the overhead of signaling a new negotiation, as taught by Cariuo2, when the list of agreed with devices is shared and consulted in relationship with a predefined P2P TWT agreement, as taught by the combination of Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin and Cariou2.
Therefore Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Thakur in view of Cariou and further in view of Shafin, and further in view of Cariou2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Griot et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0179789 discloses P2P authorizations in the context of mobile networks;
Zhang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0324455 discloses multi-AP transmissions;
Oteri et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0107537 discloses joint multi-AP transmissions;
Tehrani et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0309345 discloses distributed wireless data sharing and control systems;
Yubo Yan, et al., “OpenCarrier: Breaking the User Limit for Uplink MU-MIMO Transmissions With Coordinated APs”. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw. 18, 2, Article 19 (May 2022), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3488382;
“ISO/IEC/IEEE - International Standard - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Specific requirements for local and metropolitan area networks--Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications,” in ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11:2022(E) , vol., no., pp.1-4382, 26 Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9930960;
“IEEE Standard for Information Technology--Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems Local and Metropolitan Area Networks--Specific Requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications Amendment 1: Enhancements for High-Efficiency WLAN,” in IEEE Std 802.11ax-2021 (Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11-2020) , vol., no., pp.1-767, 19 May 2021, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2021.9442429;
“IEEE Draft Standard for Information technology— Telecommunications and information exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area networks— Specific requirements; Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications; Amendment 8: Enhancements for extremely high throughput (EHT),” in IEEE P802.11be/D3.0, January 2023 , vol., no., pp.1-999, 1 March 2023;
IEEE 802.11-23/0353r0, Title: “LB 271: CR for P2P and rTWT,” Source: Canon, March 2023;
IEEE 802.11-23/293r0, Title: "Follow-up on TWT based Multi-AP Coordination," Source: Samsung Research America, March 30, 2023;
IEEE 802.11-22/458r7, Title: “LB 271: Resolution for some CIDs related to R-TWT” Source: Meta, May, 5,2023;
IEEE 802.11-23/0754r2, Title: “LB 271: CR for R-TWT Part 2” Source: Meta, May, 5,2023;
IEEE 802.11-22/1530r1, Title: “Multi-AP coordination for next-generation Wi-Fi”, Source: Samsung Research America, Sept 2022;
IEEE 802.11-20-0671/r3, Title:” Multi-AP Operation - Basic Definition,” Source: Huawei, April 2020;
IEEE 802.11-23/0297r0, Title: “R-TWT for Multi-AP,” Source: Intel, April 2023;
IEEE 802.11-23/0847r0, Title: “LB 271 Resolution for CIDs related to R-TWT,” Source: Meta, published May 17, 2023;
IEEE 802.11-22/1463r0, Title: “LB266: CR for P2P Support in R-TWT,” Source: Meta, September 2022.
Note: all IEEE working documents are publicly available with their uploaded date at https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/documents.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 Section 35.8, IEEE P802.11be™ referenced by Cariou teaches Restricted TWT operations as “enable[ing] the STAs in the BSS to use enhanced medium access protection and resource reservation mechanisms for delivery of latency sensitive traffic,” at page 617, whereby “[t]he R-TWT scheduling AP and the R-TWT scheduled STA should set the Restricted TWT Traffic Info field (see 9.4.2.199 (TWT element)) to identify the TID(s) that carry latency sensitive traffic in DL and UL for the R-TWT membership being set up” – See id., at page 618, and the TWT element contains a “Negotiation Type subfield” and the R-TWT agreement between the member APs contains channel access rules for the rTWT schedule – See id., §35.8.5, at page 620.
2 A person of ordinary skills in the art would notice that Fig. 8 of Cariou is the same as Figure 2, “Multi-AP example deployment 2,” Wi-Fi EasyMesh® Specification Version 5.0, published by the Wi-Fi Alliance, on December 8, 2022, leveraging the IEEE 1905.1 standard for device communication and management.
3 Cariou also teaches the concept of master AP and slave AP negotiating a schedule for non-contentious channel access – See [¶0059] (in IEEE 802.llax embodiments, “a AP 502 may operate as a master station which may be arranged to contend for a wireless medium (e.g., during a contention period) to receive exclusive control of the medium for an control period. In some embodiments, the control period may be termed a transmission opportunity (TXOP). AP 502 may transmit a master-sync transmission, which may be a trigger frame or control and schedule transmission, at the beginning of the control period” whereby “STAs 504 may communicate with AP 502 in
accordance with a non-contention based multiple access technique such as OFDMA or MU-MIMO”; see also [¶0063] (“station 504 may be a "group owner" (GO) for peer-to-peer modes of operation”)
4 Because the TDLS mechanism is only one example of Thakur implementation, P2P STA membership in the rTWT schedule negotiated across two BSS is either an “add on” or a substitute mechanism to achieve the same type of communication.
5 The issue of how the non-transmitting peer STA in a TDLS is enrolled as a member a P2P communication r-TWT SP so that “the partner peer non-AP station be awake and therefore available for TXS-based P2P communication within an rTWT SP of the negotiated rTWT schedule” has been addressed in IEEE 802.11-23/0353r0, Title: “LB 271: CR for P2P and rTWT,” Source: Canon, March 2023 (hereinafter IEEE 802.11-23/0353r0), at page 4, including two proposals.
6 The present Specification does not define or otherwise articulate an intelligible principle for designating a lead AP. Therefore, under the BRI standard taking the plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skills in the art, a Multi-AP coordinator sharing its TWT, disclosed by Cariou as the AP initiating the TWT coordination request may be a lead AP because it leads the negotiation to coordinate TWT between affiliated APs. This is in accord what is known in the art, e.g., with Yubo Yan, et al., “OpenCarrier: Breaking the User Limit for Uplink MU-MIMO Transmissions With Coordinated APs”. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw. 18, 2, Article 19 (May 2022), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3488382 (hereinafter Yubo) stating that “one of the APs is designated as ‘lead AP’to coordinate the collaborative decoding among the APs” and may communicated with the other APs over Ethernet backhaul – See § 6.1, Yubo:14.