Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Objection to claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20200322964 A1, cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Sundararajan (US 20230073510 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a system [fig. 1] comprising:
a first access point (AP) [fig. 1 “AP1”] configured to:
generate, for a second AP [fig. 1 “AP2”], a first message, the first message identifying a first station [fig. 1 “STA1-2”] of the first AP for which interference from the second AP is to be partially nulled (AP1 informs AP2 of its intended STAs (i.e., ID STAs that require nulling from AP2) [fig. 2 no. 205, par. 0038]);
receive, from the second AP, a second message identifying a second station [fig. 1 “STA3-4”] of the second AP for which interference from the first AP is to be partially nulled (AP2 informs AP1 of its intended STAs (i.e., ID STAs that require nulling from AP1) [fig. 2 no. 210, par. 0038]);
determine, responsive at least to the second message, a first direction in which the interference at the first station from the second AP is partially nulled and a second direction in which the interference at the second station from the first AP is partially nulled (AP1 and AP2 null the ID’d stations (i.e., directions determined) [fig. 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038]); and
configure one or more settings of the first AP to coordinate with the second AP a time and a frequency of a transmission to the first station to be transmitted according to the second direction to partially null the interference at the second station (AP1 and AP2 (i.e., collaborative APs [par. 0036]) null the ID’d stations (i.e., directions determined) using the same RUs and includes handshaking regarding allocation of freq, time, and spatial resource (i.e., coordination of time and freq) [fig. 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038, 46, fig. 7]).
Although Wang discloses directions, as discussed above, Wang does not explicitly disclose representing a first/second spatial orientation. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Sundararajan.
In the same field of endeavor, Sundararajan discloses:
representing a first/second spatial orientation [par. 0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Sundararajan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of interference coordination [Sundararajan par. 0001].
Regarding claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Wang further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions [fig. 12 no. 1202-04, par. 0061] that, when executed by at least one processor [fig. 12 no. 1201, par. 0061] of a first access point (AP) [fig. 12, par. 0061].
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 20, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein the first AP is configured to:
transmit, to the first station at the time and the frequency, a first spatial stream of data comprising the transmission, the first spatial stream of data oriented along a third direction to partially null the interference at the second station and along the second direction (AP1 and AP2 null the respective ID’d stations (i.e., second and third directions, based on STAs 3-4) [fig. 1, 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038, 46]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses:
wherein the first stream of data is coordinated with a second stream of data transmitted by the second AP to the second station at the time and frequency along a fourth direction to partially null the interference at the first station and along the first direction (AP1 and AP2 null the respective ID’d stations (i.e., fourth and first directions, based on STAs 1-2) [fig. 1, 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038, 46]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein:
the first station is configured to receive wireless transmissions from the first AP via the wireless local area network (WLAN) of the first AP (Wi-Fi network [par. 0003, fig. 1]);
the second station is configured to receive wireless transmissions from the second AP via the WLAN of the second AP (Wi-Fi network [par. 0003, fig. 1]); and
the first station and the second station are each located within a first range of the wireless transmissions from the first AP and a second range of the wireless transmissions from the second AP (The ranges of the STAs to the APs vary and must be within range for the intended and unintended signals to be received [fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 13, it is substantially similar to claims 3-4, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses:
wherein the first AP is configured to transmit, to the first station at the time and the frequency, a first spatial stream of data comprising the transmission, the first spatial stream of data oriented along a third direction to partially null the interference at the second station and along the second direction (AP1 and AP2 null the respective ID’d stations (i.e., third and second directions, based on STAs 1-2) [fig. 1, 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038, 46]); and
wherein the second AP is configured to transmit, to the second station at the time and the frequency, a second spatial stream of data comprising a second transmission, the second spatial stream of data oriented along a fourth direction to partially null the interference at the first station and along the first direction (AP1 and AP2 null the respective ID’d stations (i.e., fourth and first directions, based on STAs 1-2) [fig. 1, 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038, 46]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein the first AP is configured to:
exchange, with the second AP, the time and the frequency for coordinating transmissions of the first AP with transmissions of the second AP (AP1 and AP2 null the ID’d stations using the same RUs (i.e., exchange time and freq) [fig. 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038, 46]); and
coordinate transmissions to the first station by the first AP with transmissions to the second station by the second AP using the time and the frequency (AP1 and AP2 null the ID’d stations using the same RUs (i.e., coordination of time and freq) [fig. 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038, 46]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein the first AP is configured to:
receive a packet comprising information on the first station (Allocated RUs apply to the first station [fig. 2 no. 210, par. 0038]);
identify, from the packet, information indicative of a spatial orientation of the first station with respect to the second AP (The info received, including the RUs, applies to the spatial orientation of the relative APs [fig. 2 no. 210, 215]); and
determine the first direction of the first station using the spatial orientation [fig. 2 no. 215].
Regarding claim 9, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein the first AP is configured to:
form a beam for the transmission to the first station to partially null the interference at the second station along the second direction (AP1 and AP2 null the respective ID’d stations (i.e., second station along second direction) [fig. 1, 2 no. 215, 220, par. 0038, 46]).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Sundararajan as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of Patil (US 20250159624 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Wang discloses wherein the first AP is configured to: receive, from the second AP, a … message identifying a third station of the second AP for which interference from the first AP is to be partially nulled and a third direction in which the interference from the first AP is partially nulled at the third station; and configure the one or more settings of the first AP to coordinate with the second AP the time and the frequency of the transmission to the first station to be sent according to a fourth direction to partially null the interference at the third station and along the third direction [fig. 1-2], and as discussed above, Wang and Sundararajan do not explicitly disclose a third message. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Patil.
In the same field of endeavor, Patil discloses:
a third message [par. 0132].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Sundararajan with Patil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of coordinating between the APs [Patil par. 0132].
Regarding claim 17, it is substantially similar to claims 8-9, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Patil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of coordinating between the APs [Patil par. 0132].
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Sundararajan as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of Sun (US 20230122711 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Wang and Sundararajan disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Wang discloses wherein the first AP is configured to: transmit, to the first station, a plurality of streams intended for the first station, …, wherein the first AP transmits, to a plurality of stations comprising the first station, a second plurality of streams comprising the plurality of streams, wherein the transmission comprises the second plurality of streams (The first AP transmits multiple plurality of streams over time), as discussed above, Wang and Sundararajan do not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the plurality of streams does not exceed a number of antennas of the first station. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Patil.
In the same field of endeavor, Patil discloses:
wherein a number of the plurality of streams does not exceed a number of antennas of the first station [par. 0007]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Sundararajan with Patil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of initial UORA implementations [Patil par. 0007].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights