DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on January 26, 2024. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 6/25/2024 and 9/11/2024 have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sedin et al. (US 2023/0319866).
Regarding Claim 1, Sedin teaches a method comprising:
receiving from each of one or more adjacent access points (APs), at an AP, a signal containing values of one or more parameters related to data transmission (“the TXOP owner, i.e., AP1 first sends a CTI (CAP TXOP Indication) message, and the APs willing to participate in the sharing of the TXOP, i.e., AP2, AP3, and AP4, respond with a CTR (CAP TXOP Request) message” – See [0008]; “the CTR message may indicate to the sharing AP that the shared AP expects a need to transmit critical data. Further, the CTR message may also indicate information which enables the sharing AP to predict the arrival of the critical data. Such information may for example include: a probability of data arriving within a certain time interval, e.g., quantized in terms of a probability metric, an expected amount of data, e.g., in terms of a typical size of a message used to transmit the critical data and/or a typical number of such messages, an arrival-type of the critical data, e.g., whether the critical data corresponds to periodic data traffic or to non-periodic data traffic, a category of the critical data, such as data related to a public safety service, emergency data, or V2X communication data” – See [0080]; AP1 receives, from AP2, AP3, and AP4, a CTR message (signal containing values of one or more parameters related to data transmission));
determining, at the AP, whether the values of the one or more parameters are greater than respective predetermined thresholds for the one or more parameters and responsive to the values of the one or more parameters greater than the respective predetermined thresholds, selecting, by the AP, one or more Co-APs as a first set of Co-APs from the one or more adjacent APs for sharing a transmit opportunity (TXOP) in a subsequent transmission of the AP (“APc may be allowed to participate in the CAP TXOP sharing if a prediction metric related to the critical data fulfills a certain criterion. For example, the prediction metric may be defined in terms of a probability that critical data to be transmitted arrives during the TXOP. If this probability is above a threshold, APc may be allowed to participate in the CAP TXOP sharing” – See [0068]; AP1 determines whether the probability/prediction metric indicated in the CTR message is greater than a threshold and if so, AP1 selects one or more of the APs as a first set of Co-APs for sharing a TXOP).
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US 2023/0319866) in view of Yang et al. (WO 2014/059795, see attached translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Sedin teaches the method of Claim 1. Sedin does not explicitly teach that the one or more parameters comprises average channel access delay for one or more access categories (ACs) of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) for frames transmitted from each EDCA AC in a sliding time window of the each of one or more adjacent APs.
However, Yang teaches that the one or more parameters comprises average channel access delay for one or more access categories (ACs) of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) for frames transmitted from each EDCA AC in a sliding time window of the each of one or more adjacent APs (“For example, the Access Category Access Delay field in the BSS AC Access Delay element is used as an example, that is, the Access Category Access Delay field is the first variable length field described in this embodiment, and the structure of the domain is as shown in FIG. 3A. The first ACI, the first average access delay corresponding to the first ACI, the second ACI, the second average access delay NACI corresponding to the second ACI, and the Nth average corresponding to the NACI Access delay. In the first variable length field shown in FIG. 3A, the parameter information corresponding to each AC is an average access delay. In addition to the foregoing Access Category Access Delay field, which can be implemented as the first variable length domain in the embodiment, the EDCA parameter set element is an AC parameter record field in the IE and a congestion notification unit” – See p. 13; The parameters comprise an average access delay for each of a plurality of corresponding Acs of EDCA, wherein frames are transmitted in a window of each of the APs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the one or more parameters comprises average channel access delay for one or more access categories (ACs) of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) for frames transmitted from each EDCA AC in a sliding time window of the each of one or more adjacent APs. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the access points to meet the access delay requirements of STAs (See Yang, p. 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US 2023/0319866) in view of Yang et al. (WO 2014/059795, see attached translation) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0361086).
Regarding Claim 3, Sedin in view of Yang teaches the method of Claim 2. Sedin and Yang do not explicitly teach that the respective predetermined thresholds comprise one threshold of 0 ms or greater than 0 ms.
However, Wang teaches that the respective predetermined thresholds comprise one threshold of 0 ms or greater than 0 ms (“For example, the service supporting URLLC needs to meet a radio access delay (air interface delay) shorter than 0.5 ms” – See [0103]; The threshold for channel access delay is 0.5 ms (i.e., greater than 0 ms)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the respective predetermined thresholds comprise one threshold of 0 ms or greater than 0 ms. Motivation for doing so would be to support low-latency services (See Wang, [0103]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US 2023/0319866) in view of Yoshikawa (US 2020/0068585) and Ahn et al. (US 2018/0254993).
Regarding Claim 4, Sedin teaches the method of Claim 1. Sedin further teaches that the access categories are access categories of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) (“In the EDCA channel access mechanism, the STA accesses the channel using a set of channel access parameters based on a traffic class of the data” – See [0005]).
Sedin does not teach that the one or more parameters comprises current queue size for one or more access categories (ACs) of each of the one or more adjacent APs.
However, Yoshikawa teaches that the one or more parameters comprises current queue size for one or more access categories (ACs) of each of the one or more adjacent APs (“A Queue Size High sub-field 655 and a Queue Size All sub-field 656 respectively indicate a queue size value of an AC whose queue size is large and a queue size value acquired by totaling all of the pieces of data” – See [0049]; The parameters comprise a queue size for one or more ACs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the one or more parameters comprises current queue size for one or more access categories (ACs) of each of the one or more adjacent APs. Motivation for doing so would be to inform the AP about the amount of data that is being held for each AC (See Yoshikawa, [0049]).
Sedin does not explicitly teach that the respective predetermined thresholds comprise one threshold of 0 Kbyte or greater than 0 Kbyte.
However, Ahn teaches that the respective predetermined thresholds comprise one threshold of 0 Kbyte or greater than 0 Kbyte (“one of the categories set for the enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) may be selected as an access category” – See [0101]; “Each access category performs internal contention based on the parameters of the access category when the corresponding queue is not empty. That is, a backoff counter is assigned to a corresponding access category based on the parameters of each access category, and internal contention between the access categories is performed based on the assigned backoff counters. The access category whose backoff counter expires first and has won the internal contention is set to the primary access category and data in the queue of the corresponding access category is determined as transmission data. According to an embodiment, in a multi-user transmission, data in a secondary access category may be transmitted with data in the primary access category using TXOP sharing” – See [0116]; The queue size threshold is greater than 0 Kbyte (i.e., not empty)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the respective predetermined thresholds comprise one threshold of 0 Kbyte or greater than 0 Kbyte. Motivation for doing so would be to assign a high priority access for queues that are not empty (See Ahn, [0139]).
Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US 2023/0319866) in view of Yang et al. (WO 2014/059795, see attached translation) and Yoshikawa (US 2020/0068585).
Regarding Claim 5, Sedin teaches the method of Claim 1. Sedin does not explicitly teach that for one or more access categories (ACs) of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) of each of the one or more adjacent APs, the one or more parameters comprises a first parameter of average channel access delay.
However, Yang teaches that for one or more access categories (ACs) of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) of each of the one or more adjacent APs, the one or more parameters comprises a first parameter of average channel access delay (“For example, the Access Category Access Delay field in the BSS AC Access Delay element is used as an example, that is, the Access Category Access Delay field is the first variable length field described in this embodiment, and the structure of the domain is as shown in FIG. 3A. The first ACI, the first average access delay corresponding to the first ACI, the second ACI, the second average access delay NACI corresponding to the second ACI, and the Nth average corresponding to the NACI Access delay. In the first variable length field shown in FIG. 3A, the parameter information corresponding to each AC is an average access delay. In addition to the foregoing Access Category Access Delay field, which can be implemented as the first variable length domain in the embodiment, the EDCA parameter set element is an AC parameter record field in the IE and a congestion notification unit” – See p. 13; The parameters comprise an average access delay for each of a plurality of corresponding ACs of EDCA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that that for one or more access categories (ACs) of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) of each of the one or more adjacent APs, the one or more parameters comprises a first parameter of average channel access delay. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the access points to meet the access delay requirements of STAs (See Yang, p. 1).
Sedin does not explicitly teach that the parameters comprise a second parameter of current queue size.
However, Yoshikawa teaches that the parameters comprise a second parameter of current queue size (“A Queue Size High sub-field 655 and a Queue Size All sub-field 656 respectively indicate a queue size value of an AC whose queue size is large and a queue size value acquired by totaling all of the pieces of data” – See [0049]; The parameters comprise a queue size for one or more ACs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the parameters comprise a second parameter of current queue size. Motivation for doing so would be to inform the AP about the amount of data that is being held for each AC (See Yoshikawa, [0049]).
Regarding Claim 7, Sedin in view of Yang and Yoshikawa teaches the method of Claim 5. Yoshikawa further teaches that the one or more parameters are periodically multicast or broadcast by each of the one or more adjacent APs using a beacon frame, an IEEE 802.11 standard measurement report frame, or a quality of service (QOS) Null frame (“A Frame Control field 601 indicates the type of the frame. For example, by setting the values in a Type sub-field 621 and a SubType sub-field 622 in the Frame Control field 601 to “11” and “00” respectively, it is indicated that the frame is a QoS Null frame” – See [0045]; The frame is a QoS Null frame).
Regarding Claim 8, Sedin in view of Yang and Yoshikawa teaches the method of Claim 7. Yoshikawa further teaches that the beacon frame includes a BSS AC Delay Information Element, the IEEE 802.11 standard measurement report frame includes an IEEE 802.11 standard STA Statistics report, and a header of the IEEE 802.11 standard measurement report frame, or the quality of service (QoS) Null frame comprises buffer status information in a QoS Control field or a high throughput (HT) Control field (“A Scaling Factor sub-field 654 indicates the scale of the queue size, and, an order indicated by the next queue size is determined based on the scale of the queue size. A Queue Size High sub-field 655 and a Queue Size All sub-field 656 respectively indicate a queue size value of an AC whose queue size is large and a queue size value acquired by totaling all of the pieces of data. In this manner, each STA can inform the AP of the amount of data that is held regarding each AC” – See [0049]; See also Fig. 6; The QoS Null frame comprises queue/buffer status information in a QoS control field and HT control field).
Regarding Claim 9, Sedin in view of Yang and Yoshikawa teaches the method of Claim 8. Yoshikawa further teaches that the STA Statistics report comprises the average access delay of one or more AC types of best effort (BE), background (BK), video (VI), and voice (VO), or the QoS Control field, or the HT Control field comprises the current queue size of one or more AC types of BE, BK, VI, and VO (“Note that “AC” is an acronym for “access category”, VO indicates “voice”, VI indicates “video”, BE indicates “best effort”, and BK indicates “background”” – See [0027]; The HT control field comprises the queue size and the corresponding AC type, which include BE, BK, VI, or VO).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US 2023/0319866) in view of Yang et al. (WO 2014/059795, see attached translation) and Yoshikawa (US 2020/0068585) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0361086) and Ahn et al. (US 2018/0254993).
Regarding Claim 6, Sedin in view of Yang and Yoshikawa teaches the method of Claim 5. Sedin, Yang, and Yoshikawa do not explicitly teach that the first parameter is associated with a first predetermined threshold of 0 ms or greater than 0 ms.
However, Wang teaches that the first parameter is associated with a first predetermined threshold of 0 ms or greater than 0 ms (“For example, the service supporting URLLC needs to meet a radio access delay (air interface delay) shorter than 0.5 ms” – See [0103]; The threshold for channel access delay is 0.5 ms (i.e., greater than 0 ms)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the first parameter is associated with a first predetermined threshold of 0 ms or greater than 0 ms. Motivation for doing so would be to support low-latency services (See Wang, [0103]).
Sedin, Yang, and Yoshikawa do not explicitly teach that the second parameter is associated with a second predetermined threshold of 0 Kbyte or greater than 0 Kbyte.
However, Ahn teaches that the second parameter is associated with a second predetermined threshold of 0 Kbyte or greater than 0 Kbyte (“one of the categories set for the enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) may be selected as an access category” – See [0101]; “Each access category performs internal contention based on the parameters of the access category when the corresponding queue is not empty. That is, a backoff counter is assigned to a corresponding access category based on the parameters of each access category, and internal contention between the access categories is performed based on the assigned backoff counters. The access category whose backoff counter expires first and has won the internal contention is set to the primary access category and data in the queue of the corresponding access category is determined as transmission data. According to an embodiment, in a multi-user transmission, data in a secondary access category may be transmitted with data in the primary access category using TXOP sharing” – See [0116]; The queue size threshold is greater than 0 Kbyte (i.e., not empty)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the second parameter is associated with a second predetermined threshold of 0 Kbyte or greater than 0 Kbyte. Motivation for doing so would be to assign a high priority access for queues that are not empty (See Ahn, [0139]).
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US 2023/0319866) in view of Shellhammer et al. (US 2021/0273757).
Regarding Claim 10, Sedin teaches the method of Claim 1. Sedin does not explicitly teach that the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via Co-OFDMA; or wherein the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via coordinated time division multiple access (Co-TDMA); or wherein the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via coordinated spatial frequency reuse (Co-SR).
However, Shellhammer teaches that the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via Co-OFDMA; or wherein the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via coordinated time division multiple access (Co-TDMA); or wherein the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via coordinated spatial frequency reuse (Co-SR) (“the techniques in this disclosure may support Co-OFDMA communication. Co-OFDMA enables multiple APs to share a wireless channel by concurrently transmitting data PPDUs in different subchannels of the wireless channel” – See [0041]; The AP shares the TXOP using Co-OFDMA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via Co-OFDMA; or wherein the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via coordinated time division multiple access (Co-TDMA); or wherein the AP shares the TXOP with the one or more Co-APs via coordinated spatial frequency reuse (Co-SR). Motivation for doing so would be to enable the multiple APs to share the wireless channel by concurrently transmitting data PPDUs in different subchannels of the wireless channel (See Shellhammer, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, Sedin teaches the method of Claim 1. Sedin does not explicitly teach selecting, by the AP, one or more sub-channels from available TXOP bandwidth for the AP to share the TXOP via Co-OFDMA, wherein each of the one or more sub-channels supports IEEE 802.11 standard and physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) transmission.
However, Shellhammer teaches selecting, by the AP, one or more sub-channels from available TXOP bandwidth for the AP to share the TXOP via Co-OFDMA, wherein each of the one or more sub-channels supports IEEE 802.11 standard and physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) transmission (“the techniques in this disclosure may support Co-OFDMA communication. Co-OFDMA enables multiple APs to share a wireless channel by concurrently transmitting data PPDUs in different subchannels of the wireless channel” – See [0041]; “The APs 102 and STAs 104 may function and communicate (via the respective communication links 108) according to the IEEE 802.11 family of wireless communication protocol standards (such as that defined by the IEEE 802.11-2016 specification or amendments thereof including, but not limited to, 802.11ah, 802.11ad, 802.11 ay, 802.11ax, 802.11az, 802.11ba and 802.11be)” – See [0052]; The AP selects a subchannel for the TXOP sharing via Co-OFDMA, wherein the subchannels support the IEEE 802.11 standard with PPDU transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin to include selecting, by the AP, one or more sub-channels from available TXOP bandwidth for the AP to share the TXOP via Co-OFDMA, wherein each of the one or more sub-channels supports IEEE 802.11 standard and physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) transmission for the same reasons as those given with respect to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 13, Sedin in view of Shellhammer teaches the method of Claim 11. Shellhammer further teaches selecting, by the AP, a second set of Co-APs from the first set of Co-APs, wherein each Co-AP in the second set of Co-APs accesses a primary 20 MHz channel that is excluded in at least one of the one or more sub-channels selected by the AP for possible TXOP sharing via Co-OFDMA (“This is useful, for example, for a legacy device or sub-bandwidth operating device to tune to a fraction (such as a 20 MHz subchannel or 80 MHz subchannel) of the wide bandwidth wireless channel” – See [0061]; See also Figs. 4 and 5; The AP selects, as a second set of Co-APs, a legacy device that operates with a 20 MHz to access a primary 20 Mhz channel that is excluded from other 80 MHz channels selected for TXOP sharing).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US 2023/0319866) in view of Yoshikawa (US 2020/0068585).
Regarding Claim 18, Sedin teaches the method of Claim 1. Sedin further teaches that each of the respective predetermined thresholds is associated with a first access category (AC) of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) (“In the EDCA channel access mechanism, the STA accesses the channel using a set of channel access parameters based on a traffic class of the data. The channel is obtained for a TXOP duration time, in which multiple frames of the same data class may be transmitted” – See [0005]; “For example, the prediction metric may be defined in terms of a probability that critical data to be transmitted arrives during the TXOP. If this probability is above a threshold, APc may be allowed to participate in the CAP TXOP sharing” – See [0068]; EDCA is utilized, wherein the probability threshold is associated with a first AC having a critical level of priority).
Sedin does not explicitly teach that the first AC has a first priority equal to or greater than a second priority of a second AC that the AP employs to acquire the TXOP.
However, Yoshikawa teaches that the first AC has a first priority equal to or greater than a second priority of a second AC that the AP employs to acquire the TXOP (“Note that “AC” is an acronym for “access category”, VO indicates “voice”, VI indicates “video”, BE indicates “best effort”, and BK indicates “background”. The priority of AC_VO is the highest, followed by AC_VI, AC_BE, and AC_BK, which are listed from highest to lowest from left to right” – See [0027]; The VO access class (e.g., a first AC) class has a priority greater than that of the BK and BE access classes (e.g., a second AC)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sedin such that the first AC has a first priority equal to or greater than a second priority of a second AC that the AP employs to acquire the TXOP. Motivation for doing so would be to ensure that the second AC with lower priority does not precede a transmission opportunity of the higher-priority first AC (See Yoshikawa, [0007]).
Claim 20 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478