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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 2-7, 10-14, 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 1, 8-9, 15 are rejected.
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, 8-9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi Gidvani et al (US 20170273017 A1) in view of Yuchen Guo et al (US 20230363001 A1) & Sundaresan Sundaram et al (US 20140029494 A1).
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to an access point (AP) receiving, via the transceiver operating in a low power receive (LPR) state, a first uplink (UL) multi-user (MU)-Request to Send (RTS) frame, wherein the AP has implemented a UL MU-RTS power save feature; initiating transitioning the transceiver to a full power state during a first padding duration corresponding to the first UL MU-RTS frame; receiving, subsequent to transitioning to the full power state, first data via the transceiver; and transitioning, subsequent to receiving the first data, the transceiver to the LPR state, the system shown in FIG. 4A.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Gidvani reference is concerned with an AP 105-b powering down RF chains in 315; receiving a RTS from Station 115-b; powering up RF chains in 325 subsequent to receipt of the RTS ; and performing data communication with the Station in 335, the system shown in FIG. 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
510
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Guo reference, cures the deficiency in the Gidvani reference by teaching First AP receiving, from First STA, first frame in S202, wherein the first frame is an MU-RTS frame. First AP further determines the determined padding duration in S203, the system shown in FIG. 9.
PNG
media_image3.png
304
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1, Gidvani discloses an access point (AP) comprising: a transceiver; and a processor coupled to the transceiver (Gidvani teaches, in FIG. 5, is a diagram of an AP 105, comprising receiver 505, RTS/CTS mode manager 510, and transmitter 515), configured to: receive, via the transceiver operating in a low power receive (LPR) state (Gidvani teaches, in FIG. 3, step 315, the AP 105-b power down RF chains), a first uplink (UL) multi-user (MU)-Request to Send (RTS) frame (Gidvani teaches, in FIG. 3, step 320, that while an AP 105-b has powered down RF chains receiving a RTS from Station 115-b), wherein the AP has implemented a UL MU-RTS power save feature; initiate transitioning the transceiver to a full power state (Gidvani teaches, in FIG. 3, step 325, the AP 105-b powering up RF chains); and receive, subsequent to transitioning to the full power state, first data via the transceiver (Gidvani teaches, in FIG. 3, step 335, that while an AP 105-b has powered up RF chains, AP 105-b and STA 115-b communicate data therebetween).
Gidvani fails to expressly disclose a MU-RTS; and a first padding duration corresponding to the first UL MU-RTS frame.
However, Guo, in analogous art, discloses a MU-RTS; and a first padding duration corresponding to the first UL MU-RTS frame (Guo teaches, in FIG. 9, step S202, that The first STA transmits the first frame. Correspondingly, a first AP receives the first frame. Then, in step S203, The first AP determines padding duration of an initial control frame. Guo explain in ¶ 0146, that if the initial control frame is an MU-RTS frame, the determined padding duration includes: the padding duration=first delay−2×SIFS−duration of the control response frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Gidvani with the padding duration taught in Guo. The motivation is so that so that a non-AP MLD can complete switching of a quantity of transmission channels before a subsequent data frame arrives [Guo: ¶ 0006].
Gidvani & Guo fail to expressly disclose an AP transition, subsequent to receiving the first data, the transceiver to the LPR state.
However, Sundaram, in analogous art, discloses a MU-RTS; and a first padding duration corresponding to the first UL MU-RTS frame (Sundaram teaches, in ¶ 0032, that this step can optionally include returning the access point transceiver into sleep mode, if it is so capable, when there is no usage of the access point transceiver.) Guo further teaches in ¶ 0030, This step can optionally include the mobile device sending a wake up request to an access point over the non-network (optical) spectrum in order for the AP to turn on its Wi-Fi transceiver if it was in sleep mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Gidvani & Guo with the novel technique for power saving taught in Sundaram. The motivation is to enable devices to turn-on their Wi-Fi reception without requiring expensive cellular hardware or special cellular protocols [Sundaram: ¶ 0033].
For Claim 8, Gidvani discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that a bandwidth for receiving the first data is greater than 20 MHz.
However, Guo, in analogous art, discloses that a bandwidth for receiving the first data is greater than 20 MHz (Guo teaches, in ¶ 0078, that A multi-link device [in FIG. 2] may simultaneously perform communication on the bands such as 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz, or simultaneously perform communication on different channels of a same band).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Gidvani with the multi-link device taught in Guo. The motivation is to increase a communication rate between devices [Guo: ¶ 0006].
For Claim 9, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
For Claim 15, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 10-14, 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2-7, 10-14, 16-20 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations including:
“configure, for a first Target Wake Time (TWT) service period (SP), a TWT UL MU-RTS AP power enhancement feature, wherein the transceiver operates in the LPR state outside of the first TWT SP, and the transceiver transitions to the full power state at a start of the first TWT SP,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited, in various permutations, in dependent claims 2, 5, 10-11, 16-17.
“transmitting a beacon comprising an impending lower availability indication for the second AP, wherein the impending lower availability indication comprises a number of target beacon transmission times (TBTTs) before a power change corresponding to the impending lower availability indication occurs,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited, in various permutations, in dependent claim 14.
“detecting a transmission from a legacy station (STA); and transitioning to the full power state based at least on the detecting, wherein the transitioning to the full power state occurs at a next beacon period,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited, in various permutations, in dependent claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: OUCHI (US 20230413332 A1) is pertinent to a communication apparatus complying with an IEEE 802.11 series standard receives a frame for requesting a TWT (Target Wake Time) operation from a first other communication apparatus among a plurality of other communication apparatuses connected to the communication apparatus, and makes a predetermined notification so as to limit a time length of a transmission frame by a second other communication apparatus different from the first other communication apparatus among the plurality of other communication apparatuses, in a case where it is determined that the frame is a frame for periodic Low Latency communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412