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 amendment filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No dependent claims have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims are new. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/23/2025 on pages 8-9 of applicant’s remark regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15. The applicant argues that Law does not teach the amended claim for receiving a management frame that indicates a future data transfer from a mobile station or STA, just between two access points, as the independent claims have been amended to say that.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, under 35 USC § 102, are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specified challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law (Pub.: No.: US 20170094693 A1, hereafter “Law”) in view of Amin (Pub. No.: US 20140112226 A1, hereafter “Amin”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 8, and Claim 15
Law teaches a method, system, and media comprising
selecting (Law Fig. 3: 306, Discovery) a communication link (Law ¶0032: select a channel) for the upcoming data transfer (Fig. 3: 308, Connection Establishment is further in connection diagram) based at least in part on the management frame (Law ¶0033: broadcasting indicators that they are in the discovery phase; Law teaches in the discovery phase selecting a channel based on if they are broadcasting that they’re in the discovery phase);
Law does not explicitly teach
receiving a management frame that indicates an upcoming data transfer from a mobile station, wherein the management frame comprises information identifying one or more characteristics of the data transfer;
communicating information associated with the communication link to the mobile station and to one or more other stations.
However, Amin teaches
receiving (Amin ¶0166-¶0167: STA communicates with the AP) a management frame (Amin ¶0166-¶0167: NDP) that indicates an upcoming data transfer (Amin ¶0166-¶0167: NDP control frame) from a mobile station (Amin ¶0166-¶0167: STA), wherein the management frame comprises information identifying one or more characteristics of the data transfer (Amin ¶0166-¶0167: target wakeup time, e.g. TWT; Amin teaches an STA sending an NDP to an AP with a control frame identifying a target wakeup time, or TWT);
communicating information (Amin ¶0166-¶0167: short paging) associated with the communication link (Amin ¶0166-¶0167: to determine Target Wakeup Time) to the mobile station and to one or more other stations (Amin ¶0092: AP 104 may transmit paging messages to a plurality of STAs 106 in a power save mode; Amin teaches a short paging at the associated TWT, and the AP can transmit to a plurality of STAs and not just the primary STA).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Law by way of Amin, to include an element that teaches an STA sending an NDP to an AP with a control frame identifying a target wakeup time, or TWT and a short paging at the associated TWT, and the AP can transmit to a plurality of STAs and not just the primary STA, as taught by Amin in ¶0092 and ¶0166-¶0167, to better improve dynamic connectivity needs, especially when the network architecture is formed ad hoc, rather than a fixed topology.
Claim 8 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art, Law teaches
A system, comprising: one or more processors (Law Fig. 5B: 521); and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (Law Fig. 5B: 528) comprising instructions that (Law Fig. 5B: 520; Law teaches a processor coupled with a storage media with instructions)
Claim 15 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art, Law teaches
One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (Law Fig. 5B: 528) embodying instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause performance of operations comprising (Law Fig. 5B: 520; Law teaches a storage media with instructions):
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 9, and Claim 16
Law in view of Amin teaches a method, system, and media comprising the method, system, and media as explained in Claim 1. Law further teaches
wherein the information associated with the communication link indicates one or more other communication links for the one or more other stations to use for communication (Law ¶0034: received signal strength is measured from one or access points).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 12, and Claim 19
Law in view of Amin teaches a method, system, and media comprising the method, system, and media as explained in Claim 1. Law further teaches
wherein communicating information associated with the communication link to one or more other stations further comprises using a traffic identification-to-link mapping request (Law ¶0032: matching identifier ID; Law teaches communicating a matching ID used for setting an AP).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 13, and Claim 20
Law in view of Amin teaches a method, system, and media comprising the method, system, and media as explained in Claim 1. Law further teaches
wherein communicating information associated with the communication link to one or more other stations further comprises communicating a duration during which the one or more other stations are disabled from using the communication link (Law ¶0035: best candidate is found from another access point; Law teaches selecting the best candidate from multiple access points).
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 14
Law in view of Amin teaches a method, system, and media comprising the method, system, and media as explained in Claim 1. Law further teaches
wherein selecting a communication link based at least in part on the management frame further comprises determining the communication link based at least in part on one or more of a number of stations that use the communication link (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), network conditions (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), an existing usage status of the communication link (Law ¶0034: received signal strength), and a pending usage status of the communication link (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Law teaches the received signal strength is used for determining the best candidate).
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law (Pub.: No.: US 20170094693 A1, hereafter “Law”) in view of Amin (Pub. No.: US 20140112226 A1, hereafter “Amin”), further in view of Sartori (Pub. No.: US 20070077952 A1, hereafter “Sartori”).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 10, and Claim 17
Law in view of Amin teaches a method, system, and media comprising the method, system, and media as explained in Claim 1. Law in view of Amin does not explicitly disclose
wherein the one or more characteristics includes a volume of traffic associated with the data transfer.
However, Sartori discloses
wherein the one or more characteristics includes a volume of traffic associated with the data transfer (Sartori ¶0028: bandwidth link parameter; Sartori teaches an access point generating a LEP capability message for reducing feedback overhead by aiming for a bandwidth link parameter).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Law in view of Amin, by way of Sartori, to include an element that teaches an access point generating a LEP capability message for reducing feedback overhead by aiming for a bandwidth link parameter, as taught by Sartori in ¶0028, to better improve LEP methods as conditions change there’s an increasing need for a system to dynamically change the underlying LEP method.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 11, and Claim 18
Law in view of Amin teaches a method, system, and media comprising the method, system, and media as explained in Claim 1. Sartori discloses
wherein the one or more characteristics includes a time requirement for the data transfer (Sartori ¶0023: coherence time; Sartori teaches a link parameter including coherence time).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Law in view of Amin, by way of Sartori, to include an element that teaches a link parameter including coherence time, as taught by Sartori in ¶0023, to better improve LEP methods as conditions change there’s an increasing need for a system to dynamically change the underlying LEP method.
Conclusion
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 JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415