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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1- 4, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-11 and 15-17 of U.S. Application No. 18/583,495. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover substantially the same subject matter and recite similar limitations.
Regarding claims 1-4, see the table below.
Application No. 18/495,910
Application No. 18/583,495
Claim 1. A method comprising:
determining sub-channels of a channel for each of a plurality of Access Points (APs);
assigning the sub-channels to the plurality of APs;
and scheduling Transmit Opportunities (TxOps) for the plurality of APs on the sub- channels.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
determining sub-channels of a channel for one or more Access Points (APs);
assigning the sub-channels to the one or more APs;
scheduling Transmit Opportunities (TxOps) for the one or more APs on the sub- channels;
determining a basic Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) and an enhanced PPDU will be simultaneously transmitted on adjacent sub-channels; and in response to determining the basic PPDU and the enhanced PPDU will be simultaneously transmitted on adjacent sub-channels:for one or more sub-channels of the enhanced PPDU, selecting one or more Resource Units (RUs) to disable transmission on.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sub-channels have any one of a width of: (i) twenty Megahertz (MHz), (ii) forty MHz, or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sub-channels have any one of a width of: (i) twenty Megahertz (MHz), (ii) forty MHz, or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii).
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the sub-channels comprises determining positions of the sub-channels to create gaps between the sub-channels.
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the sub-channels comprises determining positions of the sub-channels to create gaps between the sub-channels.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the sub-channels comprises: estimating Co-Channel Interference (CCI); and determining the CCI is below a threshold.
Claim 10: The system of claim 8, wherein to determine the sub-channels comprises to: estimate Co-Channel Interference (CCI); and determine the CCI is below a threshold.
For the similar reasons, claims 8- 11 and 15-18 are rejected.
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)(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.
(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 1-3, 7-10, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherian et al. (US 20200106579 A1, hereinafter Cherian).
Claim 1: Cherian teaches A method (abstract) comprising:
determining sub-channels of a channel for each of a plurality of Access Points (APs) ([0059], “As the TXOP owner, the first AP may coordinate with a second AP (such as a neighboring AP which is not a TXOP owner for this TXOP) to allow both the first AP and the second AP to concurrently access the wireless channel using a coordinated transmission during the TXOP”, [0079], “In a contention-based procedure, the WLAN devices (such as the APs 110, 120, and 130) may determine if the wireless channel is available and may win a contention for an upcoming transmission opportunity (TXOP)… The resource assignment may be a sub-channel or frequency division resource unit (similar to OFDMA) from the wireless channel during a time for the coordinated transmission”, Fig. 16, element 1620 Fig.18, element 1820, [0147], “The resource assignment may be conditionally available for use by the second WLAN subject to a condition based, at least in part, on an amount of interference that its use would cause to the first WLAN”, [0150], “the coordinated transmission is configured for concurrent uplink communication from the first STA to the first AP and from the second STA to the second AP. The condition may be configured to prevent the second STA from using the resource assignment when its use would cause interference to the first AP above the threshold”, [0151], “the coordinated transmission is configured for concurrent downlink communication from the first AP to the first STA and from the second AP to the second STA. The condition may be configured to prevent the second AP from using the resource assignment when its use would cause interference to the first STA above the threshold”);
assigning the sub-channels to the plurality of APs ([0079], “Coordinated transactions refers to a technique in which multiple WLAN devices may concurrently transmit using sub-bands (or resource assignments) during a portion of the TXOP. The TXOP owner (such as the first AP 110) may allocate a resource assignment to another AP (such as the second AP 120). The resource assignment may be a sub-channel or frequency division resource unit (similar to OFDMA) from the wireless channel during a time for the coordinated transmission”, Fig. 14, element 1420, Fig.15, element 1540, 1550, [0143], “allocating resources to the one or more second APs …the allocated resources for each of the one or more second APs being available for use by the respective second AP or a respective second station (STA) of the respective second BSS subject to a condition based on a respective transmit power of the second AP or the second STA”, [0147], “The resource assignment may be conditionally available for use by the second WLAN subject to a condition based, at least in part, on an amount of interference that its use would cause to the first WLAN”. Fig. 10B, [0107], “The MAP-CT-Trigger 920 may provide scheduling information for coordinated OFDMA, which may include sub-channel assignment for each of the participating APs 110, 120, and 130 for use in transmitting the uplink coordinated transmissions”, [0120], “the MAP PPDU 1050 may have a new field defined (such as HE-SIG-C) to the preamble to carry the mapping of AP identifier to the subchannel …Spatial Reuse fields of the HE-SIG-A may be used for carrying the AP identifier and subchannel mapping …SR bits in the HE-SIG-A field 1070 may be used to provide coordinated transmission information…sub-channels available for re-use” );
and scheduling Transmit Opportunities (TxOps) for the plurality of APs on the sub- channels ([0079], “the APs may be configured to support coordinated transmissions on a wireless channel. Coordinated transactions refers to a technique in which multiple WLAN devices may concurrently transmit using sub-bands (or resource assignments) during a portion of the TXOP … The resource assignment may be a sub-channel or frequency division resource unit (similar to OFDMA) from the wireless channel during a time for the coordinated transmission”. Fig. 14, element 1420, 1430, 1440, [0136], “providing a resource assignment to the second AP for use in a coordinated transmission on the wireless channel during a second portion of the transmission opportunity”, [0137], “the process 1400 proceeds with communicating a multi-AP coordinated transmission trigger (MAP-CT-Trigger) message to indicate a start of the second portion of the transmission opportunity”, Fig. 15, element 1540, 1550, 1560, [0144], “transmitting a multi-AP
coordinated transmission trigger (MAP-CT-Trigger) message to the plurality of APs to indicate the allocated resources and a start of the second portion of the transmission opportunity”).
Claim 8 is analyzed and rejected according to Claim 1 and Cherian further teaches a memory storage (Fig. 13A, element 1340); and a processing unit (Fig. 13A, element 1330) coupled to the memory storage ([0131], “the AP 1302 additionally includes an application processor 1330 coupled with the wireless communication device 1310, and a memory 1340 coupled with the application processor 1330”).
Claim 15 is analyzed and rejected according to Claim 1 and Cherian further teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions ([0009], “Another innovative aspect of the subject matter described in this disclosure can be implemented in a tangible computer-readable storage medium that includes non-transitory processor-executable code which, when executed by at least one processor of a wireless device, may cause the wireless device to implement any of the methods in this disclosure”, [0178], “such storage media may include RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that may be used to store program code in the form of instructions or data structures”).
Claim 2: Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sub-channels have any one of a width of: (i) twenty Megahertz (MHz), (ii) forty MHz, or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii) ([0073], “each of which is divided into multiple 20 MHz channels. As such, these PPDUs are transmitted over a physical channel having a minimum bandwidth of 20 MHz, but larger channels can be formed through channel bonding … PPDUs may be transmitted over physical channels having bandwidths of 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 or 320 MHz by bonding together multiple 20 MHz channels”, [0090], “ the scheduling indication may be provided in a MAP-PPDU from each of the second AP 120 and third AP 130. The subchannel used by each AP 120 and 130 for transmission of a SI frame may be derived from the MAP-Sch-Trigger 310 … a SI-frame 520 that occupies a first sub-channel of multiple available subchannels (such as a first 20 MHz channel of multiple available 20 MHz channels)”).
Claim 9 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 8 and claim 2.
Claim 16 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 2.
Claim 3: Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the sub-channels comprises: estimating Co-Channel Interference (CCI); and determining the CCI is below a threshold (Fig. 2, [0078], “the APs 110, 120, and 130 may be configured to use a same wireless channel … they are configured for the same wireless channel in the same location … channel access may use orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)”, wherein the same wireless channel is serving the similar as co-channel. [0072], “The APs 102 and STAs 104 also can be configured to communicate over other frequency bands such as shared licensed frequency bands, where multiple operators may have a license to operate in the same or overlapping frequency band or bands”, [0060], “a first AP (as TXOP owner) may allocate a resource assignment that is conditionally available for use by the second AP in a coordinated transmission on the wireless channel during a portion of the TXOP … the parameter may be related to a power level, channel quality, interference tolerance…The first AP can calculate the parameter and provide it to the second AP. The second AP can use the parameter … to determine whether using the resource assignment would cause too much interference to the first WLAN.”, [0151], “the coordinated transmission is configured for concurrent downlink communication from the first AP to the first STA and from the second AP to the second STA. The condition may be configured to prevent the second AP from using the resource assignment when its use would cause interference to the first STA above the threshold”, [0150], “the coordinated transmission is configured for concurrent uplink communication from the first STA to the first AP and from the second STA to the second AP. The condition may be configured to prevent the second STA from using the resource assignment when its use would cause interference to the first AP above the threshold”, [0016], “The condition may be configured to prevent the second APs from using the respective allocated resources when the transmit power of the respective second AP is above a threshold”).
Claim 10 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 8 and claim 3.
Claim 17 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 3.
Claim 7: Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein scheduling the TxOps comprises scheduling one or more of the TxOps of one or more of the plurality of APs at simultaneous times (Fig. 3, element 325, Fig. 4, Fig. 5. [0086], “the coordinated transmission 325 may include transmissions from all participating BSSs simultaneously within the second portion of the TXOP 317. Resources within the coordinated transmissions 325 may be allocated, as indicated above, based on time resources, frequency resources, or using coordinated OFDMA using orthogonal channels”, [0085], “in a contention-based procedure, the APs 110, 120, and 130 may contend for access to a wireless channel during a contention/countdown window 305 … the first AP 110 may be the first to contend for channel access … and may win control of the TXOP … the first AP 110 may be in control of scheduling resources during the TXOP”, [0089], “FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a concurrent scheduling 500 for multiple APs in a first portion of the TXOP… first AP 110, second AP 120, and third AP 130 may perform coordinated transmissions in which concurrent scheduling of multiple APs 110, 120, and 130 may be implemented”).
Claim 14 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 8 and claim 7.
Claim 20 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 7.
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.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian et al. (US 20200106579 A1, hereinafter Cherian) in view of Narula et al. (US 20240406745 A1, hereinafter Narula).
Claim 4: Cherian does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the sub-channels comprises determining positions of the sub-channels to create gaps between the sub-channels.
Narula, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the sub-channels comprises determining positions of the sub-channels to create gaps between the sub-channels (Fig. 7, element 720, 730, 740, [0039], “ interference avoidance for high density ad hoc networks may be implemented by creating ad hoc WLAN clusters (WLAN pico-nets) of IHSs with nonoverlapping channels … Physical separation of ad hoc WLAN clusters may be optimized, minimizing cochannel interference, such as through use of dynamic threshold calculations. Nearby ad hoc WLAN clusters may be further isolated by dynamically adjusting transmit power control to isolate nearby ad hoc WLAN clusters, and/or by scaling channel width, such as through Dynamic Throughput Scalar (DTS) calculations”, [0048], “co-channel interference strength is identified … Thereafter, weak co-channel interference signals may be ignored, and co-channel concurrent transmission is implemented, per FIG. 10. This increases system throughput”. Wherein physically separating, ignoring weak co-channel interference, scaling channel width is reading as performing the similar function as determining positions of the sub-channels to create gaps between the sub-channels).
Cherian and Narula are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Cherian and the features of determining positions of the sub-channels to create gaps between the sub-channels as taught by Narula, for the benefit for minimizing cochannel interference by physical separation , dynamically adjusting transmit power control, dynamically scaling channel width (paragraph [0039]), and increasing system throughput by using dynamic throughput scalar to adjust channel width (Fig. 720, paragraph [0052]).
Claim 11 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 8 and claim 4.
Claim 18 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 4.
Claim 5: Cherian does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the sub-channels comprises: estimating a spectral efficiency; and determining the spectral efficiency is above a threshold.
Narula, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the sub-channels comprises: estimating a spectral efficiency; and determining the spectral efficiency is above a threshold (Fig. 7, element 720, 740 , [0052], “isolating nearby ad hoc WLAN clusters may further involve scaling channel width, at 740, thereby scaling throughput, such as by implementation of a dynamic throughput scalar process … a telemetry and statistics-based throughput calibration procedure can be used to detect the transmission rate achieved with the configuration, providing information on spectrum scaling needs”, [0051], “ Additionally, a throughput calibration procedure can be applied to adapt to needs of an enterprise employ embodiments of the present systems and methods for interference avoidance for such high density ad hoc networks”, [0048], “co-channel interference strength is identified, and a Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) threshold is dynamically adjusted … Thereafter, weak co-channel interference signals may be ignored, and co-channel concurrent transmission is implemented, per FIG. 10. This increases system throughput”, [0007], “physical separation of ad hoc WLAN clusters may be optimized to minimize cochannel interference, such as by using dynamic threshold calculations that enable overlap in channels of different ad hoc WLAN clusters enabling IHSs to operate without randomly backing off”).
The motivation for combining Cherian and Narula regarding to the claim 4 is also applied to claim 5.
Claim 12 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 8 and claim 5.
Claim 19 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 5.
Claim 6: Cherian does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the sub-channels comprises: determining positions and widths of the sub-channels so estimated interference is below a threshold.
Narula, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the sub-channels comprises: determining positions and widths of the sub-channels so estimated interference is below a threshold (Fig. 7, element 720, 740, [0039], “Physical separation of ad hoc WLAN clusters may be optimized, minimizing cochannel interference, such as through use of dynamic threshold calculations. Nearby ad hoc WLAN clusters may be further isolated by dynamically adjusting transmit power control to isolate nearby ad hoc WLAN clusters, and/or by scaling channel width, such as through Dynamic Throughput Scalar (DTS) calculations”, [0048], “co-channel interference strength is identified, and a Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) threshold is dynamically adjusted. … Thereafter, weak co-channel interference signals may be ignored, and co-channel concurrent transmission is implemented, per FIG. 10. This increases system throughput”, [0052], “isolating nearby ad hoc WLAN clusters may further involve scaling channel width, at 740, thereby scaling throughput, such as by implementation of a dynamic throughput scalar process … a telemetry and statistics-based throughput calibration procedure can be used to detect the transmission rate achieved with the configuration, providing information on spectrum scaling needs” ).
The motivation for combining Cherian and Narula regarding to the claim 4 is also applied to claim 6.
Claim 13 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 8 and claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. The closest prior art reference is Lou et al. (US 20230163808 A1, hereinafter Lou), which describes a method performed by a first wireless access point for coordinating a multi-access point transmission in a wireless network of multiple access points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on (571) 270-5443. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472