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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 23 April 2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending in the application. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2024/0114553 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses a first wireless access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the first wireless AP to (Fig. 1, APs; Fig. 10, [0047]):
receive, via one or more frames (Fig. 2, 204; [0025] disclosing “If AP3 (AP2) transmits a frame AP1 may receive the frame”; [0026] disclosing “the AP3 may announce in a frame 204 the restricted target wake up time service period (r-TWT SP) information of AP3”), timing information associated with communication periods of a second wireless AP (Fig. 8, 812 [0044]-[0045] disclosing the TWT Element 800 is used to announce the r-TWT SP) and a value ([0026] disclosing “the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not) associated with a multi-hop propagation of the timing information ([0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information…AP2 is a two hop neighbor of AP3 because AP2 is not able to detect AP3's beacon (and the frame exchanges between AP3 and AP3's associated STAs)); and
selectively transmit, via a frame of the first wireless AP, the timing information associated with the communication periods of the second wireless AP, wherein the timing information is transmitted in accordance with the value indicating that the first wireless AP is to propagate the timing information ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not; [0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information).
Regarding claim 2, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein, to receive the value associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information, the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
receive the value via a broadcast target wake time (TWT) identifier (ID) field (Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045] disclosing TWT element 800 used to announce or report TWT information may be a broadcast TWT with an ID ).
Regarding claim 4, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 2, wherein the value is indicative of a presence, within a TWT element associated with the broadcast TWT ID field, of one or more additional fields associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information (Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 4, wherein the one or more additional fields include a group ID field, a basic service set (BSS) color field, an acceptable interference field (Fig. 6, [0036]-[0039]), a field indicative of a list of other AP IDs, or any combination thereof, the one or more additional fields to be propagated with the timing information.
Regarding claim 6, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein, to receive the value associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information, the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
receive the value via a hop count field of a frame or element dedicated to conveying information associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not).
Regarding claim 7, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 6, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
receive, via the frame or element, one or more additional fields associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information (Fig. 6, 608, [0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 7, wherein the one or more additional fields include a schedule start time field, a periodicity field, a service period duration field, a persistence field, a group ID field, a basic service set (BSS) color field, a transmission parameter field, or any combination thereof, the one or more additional fields to be propagated with the timing information (Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
transmit an updated value in accordance with transmitting the timing information via the frame of the first wireless AP, wherein the updated value is associated with an increment or a decrement of the value ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not; [0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information).
Regarding claim 11, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 10, wherein the updated value is transmitted via the frame or a second frame of the first wireless AP ([0025]-[0026] Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
transmit scheduling information to one or more wireless stations (STAs) associated with the first wireless AP in accordance with the value, wherein the value is further associated with a coordination status between the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP (Fig. 1, coordination logic 120, [0023], [0026]), [0031]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 13, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 12, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
communicate with the one or more wireless STAs outside of the communication periods of the second wireless AP in accordance with the value indicating a first coordination status, the first coordination status being associated with an expectation to honor the communication periods of the second wireless AP ([0031]-[0035]); or
communicate with the one or more wireless STAs during at least a portion of the communication periods of the second wireless AP in accordance with the value indicating a second coordination status, the second coordination status being associated with no expectation to honor the communication periods of the second wireless AP ([0031]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 17, Chu discloses a method for wireless communication by a first wireless access point (AP), comprising:
receiving, via one or more frames (Fig. 2, 204; [0025] disclosing “If AP3 (AP2) transmits a frame AP1 may receive the frame”; [0026] disclosing “the AP3 may announce in a frame 204 the restricted target wake up time service period (r-TWT SP) information of AP3”), timing information associated with communication periods of a second wireless AP (Fig. 8, 812 [0044]-[0045] disclosing the TWT Element 800 is used to announce the r-TWT SP) and a value ([0026] disclosing “the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not) associated with a multi-hop propagation of the timing information ([0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information…AP2 is a two hop neighbor of AP3 because AP2 is not able to detect AP3's beacon (and the frame exchanges between AP3 and AP3's associated STAs)); and
selectively transmitting, via a frame of the first wireless AP, the timing information associated with the communication periods of the second wireless AP, wherein the timing information is transmitted in accordance with the value indicating that the first wireless AP is to propagate the timing information ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not; [0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2024/0114553 A1) in view of Haider et al. “R-TWT Multi-AP Coordination”, IEEE 802.11-23/0291r0.
Regarding claim 3, Chu does not expressly disclose the following; however, Haider discloses the first wireless AP of claim 2, wherein the broadcast TWT ID field is associated with the value in accordance with a TWT schedule information subfield being set to a second value (Slide 10, Restricted TWT Schedule Info).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the Schedule info field of Haider in the invention of Chu because the teaching lies in Chu that this field is already existent in the field of endeavor and can be utilize when sharing R-TWT schedules which can lead to further enhancement of R-TWT operation and medium protection (Slides 2 and 10).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2024/0114553 A1) over Kyo et al. (JP-2007-184937-A) citations correspond to the pages of the attached translation.
Regarding claim 18, Chu discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising:
selecting the value in accordance with one or more criteria ([0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information…AP2 is a two hop neighbor of AP3 because AP2 is not able to detect AP3's beacon (and the frame exchanges between AP3 and AP3's associated STAs)).
Chu does not disclose the following; however, Kyo suggests receiving, via one or more second frames, the timing information associated with the communication periods of the second wireless AP and a second value associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information; and selecting the value instead of the second value in accordance with one or more criteria (pg. 3 paragraph below TECH-SOLUTION disclosing upon receiving a duplicate broadcast packet with a higher hop count of the first received broadcast packet, not forwarding the duplicate packet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Chuy as suggested by Kyo because the teaching lies in Kyo that in techniques such as those taught by Chu in which a node which receives a broadcast packet forwards such packets, unnecessary redundant transmission or a broadcast storm problem can occur (Fig.1, Fig. 2, pg. 1 last paragraph to pg. 2 line 10) and that the proposed technical solution can reduce the numb er of forwarding nodes while guaranteeing a high broadcast coverage ratio, save energy of wireless nodes, greatly reduce the redundant flow in the network, and shorten the transmission delay of broadcast packets (pg. 3, paragraph below TECH-PROBLEM)
Regarding claim 19, Chu discloses the method of claim 18, wherein selecting the value instead of the second value further comprises:
selecting the value in accordance with the one or more frames being of the second wireless AP ([0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2)).
It is noted that the alternative features selecting the value in accordance with the value being relatively lower than the second value; or selecting the value in accordance with the value being relatively higher than the second value appear to be disclosed by Kyo (pg. 3, paragraph below TECH-SOLUTION).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2024/0114553 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (WO 2023/183240 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Chu discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising:
receiving from a third wireless AP a set of medium access schedules including one or more first medium access schedules of the third wireless AP and one or more second medium access schedules of one or more other wireless APs propagated by the third wireless AP (Fig. 1, [0017] “Each AP announces its r-TWT SP information and r-TWT SP information of neighbor APs”, [0021], [0025]-[0026]).
Chu does not disclose the following; however, Gupta suggests transmitting, to a third wireless AP, a first frame including a request for information indicative of a set of most recent medium access schedules; and receiving, from the third wireless AP, a second frame including the information indicative of the set of most recent medium access schedules (pg. 22, lines 13-25 disclosing an AP can request and receive from another AP the latest TWT schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Chu as taught by Gupta because this can reduce judder in virtual reality systems thus avoiding motion sick ness that degrades the user experience (pg. 1, lines 8-29).
Response to Arguments
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's arguments filed 31 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the restriction is between species (pg. 8). Applicant is mistaken because the restriction is between subcombinations useable together. Further, the requirement for restriction provides the required reasoning for said restriction. It is noted the inventions have separate classifications. Such separate classifications are evidence of a different field of search for each invention.
Further, applicant draws attention to the timing information and value features; however, the invention of group 1 relays/forwards (i.e., selectively transmits) information based on the content of the information which does not have any overlapping scope with a device which generates said information and initially transmits said information. The dependent claims further provide evidence that each invention is distinct. More still, as indicated in the restriction requirement, the inventions are separately useable. As such, the restriction is proper.
Applicant has not provided any evidence other than an assertion that “throughout the Specification” that undisclosed combinations of features exist. Such assertions fail to point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Accordingly, examiner is not persuaded by applicant’s arguments and claims 14-16 stand as withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 23 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F .2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N. V. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference ... need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it 'd[oes] not expressly spell out' all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would 'at once envisage' the claimed arrangement or combination.") (quoting In re Petering, 301F.2d676, 681 (CCPA 1962)).
Applicant asserts the reference of record Chu does not disclose, “wherein the timing information is transmitted in accordance with the value indicating that the first wireless AP is to propagate the timing information.” Applicant’s arguments fail to fully consider the grounds of rejection and ignore the feature in Chu that examiner considers to correspond to “the value”. Chu discloses the APs announce timing information (i.e., r-TWT SP information). Chu discloses the APs announce two types of timing information, their own timing information and the timing information of their one-hop neighbors. Moreover, Chu does not appear to contemplate APs announcing anything beyond their own timing information and that of one-hop neighbors in the cited portions. That is to say, AP2 and AP3 only include the timing information of AP1 tagged as one-hop neighbor information and do not announce the timing information of each other tagged as two-hop neighbors. ([0025]). Chu discloses, “Further, the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not.” ([0026]). Thus, it appears that Chu discloses an AP announcing its one-hop neighbor’s timing information (e.g., explicitly identified as one-hop neighbor’s) and announcing its own timing information (e.g., explicitly identified as not one-hop neighbor timing information).
Accordingly, it appears that Chu describes an AP explicitly identifying its timing information with the indication that the timing information is not one-hop neighbor timing information. And when another AP receives said timing information it is aware that it is from a neighboring AP and needs to announce it as its one-hop neighbor timing information. It appears that Chu describes if this value explicitly identifies the timing information is from a one-hop neighbor, then the AP selects to not transmit that timing information, and that when the value explicitly identifies that it is not one-hop neighbor timing information, the AP selects to transmit that information; and as admitted by applicant selects to tag that as one-hop neighbor timing information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claims 3 and 18-20, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose information material to patentability as set forth in 37 CFR 1.56.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ajami et al., “Considerations for AP coordination in UHR: Coordinated Medium Access”, IEEE 802.11-23/226r1.
Chu et al. “AP Coordination”, IEEE 802.11-23/0250r0.
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 Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights