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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For claim 1, Applicant states the prior art does not disclose “a second indication of whether the second AP is configured to transmit to multiple users during the multi-AP transmission”. However, Park discloses as previously cited that the master AP transmits to multiple Slave APs an indication that it is able to transmit to multiple APs (users) during the multi-AP transmission (“Payload: MAC address and resource allocation information of each Slave AP”, additionally, a Multi-AP participation bit, see Fig 30), which itself is an indication that the second AP is configured to transmit to multiple users during the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 300-315, 86, 72, Fig 30). Therefore, since the prior art appears to disclose the claimed limitation, the rejections under the prior art are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (WO 2021/141211)(cited on IDS)[Citations are directed to provided translation US 2023/0103807)[R1].
For claim 1, R1 discloses receiving, by a first access point (AP) from a second AP, a first frame comprising a first indication of a primary channel of the second AP (paragraphs 322-323 master AP transmits an allocation frame to the slave AP to indicate channel allocated, Fig 30); transmitting a multi-AP buffer status report poll (MBSRP) frame (paragraphs 300-304, 309, 314 Fig 30AP transmits a request frame to slave aps); receiving a multi-AP buffer status report (MBSR) frame comprising: a buffer status report (BSR) (paragraphs 301-310, 86, 72); and a second indication of whether the second AP is configured to transmit to multiple users during the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 301-310, 86, 72); allocating, based on the second indication and based on the second AP being configured to transmit to multiple users during the multi-AP transmission, a frequency channel to the second AP for the multi-AP transmission, wherein the frequency channel allocated to the second AP is the primary channel of the second AP (paragraphs 309-315); and transmitting a multi-AP schedule announcement (MSA) frame (paragraphs 309-315).
For clam 2, R1 discloses transmitting, based on the second indication, a third frame comprising a frequency allocation, wherein the frequency allocation is to the second AP for the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 300, 305, 309, 313-317).
For claim 3, R1 discloses the first AP is a slave AP and the second AP is a master AP (paragraphs 294-295, 300-305, 309).
For claim 4, R1 discloses the MBSRP frame is configured to poll, during a transmit opportunity (TXOP) obtained by the first AP, the second AP for buffered traffic for a multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 296, 300-304).
For claim 5, R1 discloses the MSA frame comprises the frequency channel allocated to the second AP for the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 300, 305, 309, 313-317).
For claim 6, R1 discloses the primary channel of the second AP corresponds to a default channel a default channel configured for transmission of beacon frames by the second AP (paragraphs 279-287).
For claim 7, R1 discloses transmitting a fourth frame polling the second AP for buffered traffic for the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 309-315).
For claims 8 and 15, R1 discloses the BSR for the multi-AP transmission indicates a traffic identifier (TID) for traffic having a non-empty queue size at the second AP (paragraphs 86, 312-314).
For claim 9, R1 discloses allocating the primary channel of the second AP, or another channel, to the second AP for the multi-AP transmission, if the second AP does not intend to transmit to multiple users during the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 300, 305, 309, 313-317).
For claim 11, R1 discloses the multi-AP transmission is a Coordinated Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (COFDMA) transmission (paragraphs 283-287).
For claim 12, R1 discloses the second AP transmits a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) during the multi-AP transmission, and wherein the PPDU comprises at least one of: a broadcast frame, a multi-cast frame, or an individually addressed data frame (paragraphs 326-329).
For claim 13, R1 discloses receiving, by a first access point (AP) from a second AP, a first frame comprising a first indication of a primary channel of the second AP (paragraphs 296, 300-305, 309-315); receiving a second frame comprising: a buffer status report (BSR) for a multi-AP transmission during a transmit opportunity (TXOP) obtained by the first AP (paragraphs 296, 300-305, 309-315, 86, 72); and a second indication of whether the second AP intends to transmit to multiple users during the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 296, 300-305, 309-315, 86, 72); and transmitting, based on the second indication, a third frame comprising a frequency allocation, wherein the frequency allocation is to the second AP for the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 296, 300-305, 309-315).
For claim 14, R1 discloses transmitting a fourth frame polling the second AP for buffered traffic for the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 296, 300-305, 309-315).
For claim 16, R1 discloses the second frame comprises a multi-AP buffer status report (MBSR) frame (paragraphs 300-315).
For claim 17, R1 discloses transmitting, by a first access point (AP), a first frame comprising a first indication of a primary channel of the first AP (paragraphs 322-323 master AP transmits an allocation frame to the slave AP to indicate channel allocated); receiving a multi-AP buffer status report poll (MBSRP) frame wherein the MBSRP frame is configured to poll, during a transmit opportunity (TXOP) obtained by the first AP, the second AP for buffered traffic for a multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 300-304, 309, 314 AP transmits a request frame to slave aps); transmitting a multi-AP buffer status report (MBSR) frame comprising: a buffer status report (BSR) (paragraphs 301-310, 86, 72); and a second indication of whether the first AP intends to transmit to multiple users during the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 301-310, 86, 72); and receiving, based on the second indication, a multi-AP schedule announcement (MSA) frame (paragraphs 309-315) comprising a frequency channel allocation to the first AP for the multi-AP transmission, wherein the frequency channel allocation to the first AP is the primary channel of the first AP (paragraphs 309-315).
For claim 18, R1 discloses the first frame comprises a coordination request frame to join a multi-AP set of the second AP (paragraphs 300, 305, 309, 313-317).
For claim 19, R1 discloses receiving, by the first AP from the second AP, a fourth frame polling the first AP for buffered traffic for the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 296, 300-305, 309-315).
For claim 20, R1 discloses the second AP allocates, based on the second indication, a frequency channel to the first AP for the multi-AP transmission (paragraphs 296, 300-305, 309-315).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 in view of Coordinated OFDMA Operation (cited on IDS)[R2].
For claim 10, R1 does not explicitly state determining whether the primary channel of second AP is allocated to another AP for the multi-AP transmission; and allocating the primary channel of the second AP to the second AP for the multi-AP transmission, if the primary channel of the second AP is not allocated to another AP for the multi-AP transmission. However, R2 discloses determining whether the primary channel of second AP is allocated to another AP for the multi-AP transmission; and allocating the primary channel of the second AP to the second AP for the multi-AP transmission, if the primary channel of the second AP is not allocated to another AP for the multi-AP transmission (slide 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to determining whether the primary channel of second AP is allocated to another AP for the multi-AP transmission; and allocating the primary channel of the second AP to the second AP for the multi-AP transmission, if the primary channel of the second AP is not allocated to another AP for the multi-AP transmission taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to use a known technique in a similar device, to allow for increase system flexibility, to allow for more efficient resource usage, and design choice.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights