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 amendment & remarks filed on 06/01/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23 are currently pending.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are canceled.
Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Claims 1, 9, 15 are currently amended.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 23 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claims 1, 8-9, 15, 21-22 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment filed on 06/01/2026 have necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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) & Jeongki Kim et al (US 20150085780 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); and transition the transceiver to the LPR state (Gidvani teaches, in in ¶ 0039, that in one example, the AP 105 may power down at least one radio chain (e.g., at least one RF chain) and enter into a sleep mode).
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 that no transmissions occur during a Point Coordination Function (PCF) Interframe Space (PIFS) following the first data.
However, Kim, in analogous art, discloses that no transmissions occur during a Point Coordination Function (PCF) Interframe Space (PIFS) following the first data (Kim teaches, in ¶ 0278, that Once STA 2 switches to the awake state and confirms that the medium is in the idle state in the PIFS, STA 2 transmits the PS-Poll frame to the AP. The AP receives the PS-Poll frame from STA 2 and transmits an ACK frame after the SIFS, and then the PS-Poll interval ends. As in the case of STA 1, STA 2 switches to the sleep state when the PS-Poll interval thereof ends and remains in the sleep state until the total PS-Poll interval ends). Kim further teaches in ¶ 0258, that An STA may sense the busy or idle state of the medium during one of SIFS, PIFS, PIFS+additional time, and EDCA time (AIFS+random backoff) prior to PS-Poll frame transmission ... Hereinafter, for simplicity of description, it will be assumed that the STA uses the PIFS.
Thus, Kim teaches that the PIFS is used to confirm that the medium is in the idle state; it is not used for transmission.
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 PIFS taught in Kim. The motivation is to confirm that the medium is in the idle state so that collision can be avoided or reduced.
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.
Claims 21-22 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) & Jeongki Kim et al (US 20150085780 A1) as applied to claim 1 or 15 above, and further in view of Guogang Huang (US 20250016682 A1).
For Claims 21-22, Gidvani, Guo and Kim disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception to transmit 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.
However, Huang, in analogous art, discloses to transmit 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 (Huang teaches, in ¶ 0055, that the access point multi-link device sends a reduced neighbor report element, where a target beacon transmission time information set field that corresponds to the first access point and that is in the reduced neighbor report element carries only a multi-link device parameters field. Huang explains, in ¶ 0047, that the mode switch count field indicates a remaining time for the first access point to switch from a current mode to a target mode. The remaining time may be represented as a number of TBTTs of a corresponding link).
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 and Kim with the number of TBTTs taught in Huang. The motivation is to inform the STA(s) about a remaining time for the access point to switch from a current mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 23 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 2-5, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 23 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 claims 20, 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Claims 1, 8-9, 15, 21-22
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s statement that Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended to include some of the features of now-cancelled claims 6, 12, and 18, respectively. Dependent claims 6, 12, and 18 are indicated to include allowable subject matter. (Office Action, pp. 8-9.)” (see remarks, pages 8-10).
As an initial matter, Examiner would like to restate the reason for indicating allowable subject matter:
“Claims 2-5, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 23 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”.
As can clearly be seen in the above restatement, claims 6, 12 and 18 were not indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Claim 6 depended from claim 5, which claim 5 was indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Therefore, incorporating the subject matter of claim 6 into claim 1 does not render claim 1 allowable.
Additionally, the newly cited reference, Kim teaches, in ¶ 0278, that Once STA 2 switches to the awake state and confirms that the medium is in the idle state in the PIFS, STA 2 transmits the PS-Poll frame to the AP. The AP receives the PS-Poll frame from STA 2 and transmits an ACK frame after the SIFS, and then the PS-Poll interval ends. As in the case of STA 1, STA 2 switches to the sleep state when the PS-Poll interval thereof ends and remains in the sleep state until the total PS-Poll interval ends. Kim further teaches in ¶ 0258, that An STA may sense the busy or idle state of the medium during one of SIFS, PIFS, PIFS+additional time, and EDCA time (AIFS+random backoff) prior to PS-Poll frame transmission ... Hereinafter, for simplicity of description, it will be assumed that the STA uses the PIFS.
Thus, Kim teaches that the PIFS is used to confirm that the medium is in the idle state; it is not used for transmission.
Accordingly, Examiner believes that the combination of Gidvani, Guo and Kim discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Examiner submits that amended claim 1 is not yet patentable over the combination of applied art.
Independent claims 9 and 15, as amended, recites similar features. Therefore, independent claims 9 and 15, are also not yet patentable over the art of record.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 8-9, 15, 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
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 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
Prosecution Insights