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 .
Oath/Declaration
A properly executed inventor’s oath or declaration has not been received for any of the listed inventors. It is recommended that an oath or declaration be submitted for each inventor.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0120427 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 18, Wang et al. discloses an access point (AP) device in a wireless network, the AP device comprising: a memory; a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to perform a computer-implemented method for facilitating communication in a wireless network (See paragraph 4, paragraph 41, paragraphs 79-83, and Figures 1 and 26 of Wang et al. for reference to an access point, AP, in a wireless local area network, WLAN, comprising a memory coupled to a processor configured to cause the AP to perform a method of multi-AP coordination in the WLAN). Wang et al. also discloses receiving information related to multi-AP coordination from a station (STA) (See paragraphs 45-46 and Figure 2 of Wang et al. for reference to a STA associated with the AP reporting received power interference of other APs associated with different BSSs). Wang et al. further discloses selecting at least one other AP that is not affiliated with the AP device based on the information and communicating with the at least one other AP to perform multi-AP coordination (See paragraph 43 and Figure 2 of Wang et al. for reference to the AP, i.e. AP1, selecting another AP, i.e. AP3, associated with a different BSS, i.e. not affiliated with AP1, as a coordinated AP based on the reported interference of the STA, and for reference to the AP1 informing AP3 that it has been selected as a coordinated AP). Wang et al. also discloses communicating with the STA in coordination with the at least one other AP (See paragraphs 46-48 and Figures 2-3 of Wang et al. for reference to the AP communicating with the STA in the uplink or downlink based on the coordination with the coordinated AP).
With respect to claim 11, Wang et al. discloses A station (STA) device in a wireless network, the STA device comprising: a memory; a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to control the operation of the STA (See paragraph 4, paragraph 41, paragraphs 79-83, and Figures 1 and 26 of Wang et al. for reference to a station, STA, in a wireless local area network, WLAN, comprising a memory coupled to a processor configured to cause the STA to perform wireless communication with an access point, AP). Wang et al. also discloses transmitting information related to multi-AP coordination to a first AP, wherein the information comprises interference information that identifies a second AP that is not affiliated with the first AP (See paragraphs 45-46 and Figure 2 of Wang et al. for reference to the STA associated with the AP reporting received power interference of other APs associated with different BSSs, i.e. that are not affiliated with the AP). Wang et al. further discloses receive configuration information from the first AP, wherein the configuration information has been configured based on a performed multi-AP coordination with the second AP (See paragraphs 47-48 and Figure 3 of Wang et al. for reference to the STA receiving a trigger to perform UL communication with the AP based on multi-AP coordination between the AP and another AP).
With respect to claims 2, 12, and 19, Wang et al. discloses wherein the information is received from the STA in an unsolicited manner or the information is solicited by the AP device (See paragraph 45 and Figure 2 of Wang et al. for reference to an embodiment wherein the AP requests the STA to report the received power interference, such that it is solicited by the AP device).
With respect to claims 3, 13, and 20, Wang et al. discloses wherein the information includes interference information of an interference from the at least one other AP to the STA (See paragraphs 45-48 and Figures 2 and 3 of Wang et al. for reference to the information including received power interference from a list of other APs to the STA).
With respect to claim 4, Wang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to: select the at least one other AP to perform multi-AP coordination based on a level of interference (See paragraph 44-46 and Figure 2 of Wang et al. for reference to the AP selecting the other AP as a coordinated AP based on the interference level reported by the STA).
With respect to claim 5, Wang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to: select the at least one other AP to perform multi-AP coordination when the level of interference is above a threshold (See paragraph 44 of Wang et al. for reference to the AP selecting the other AP as a coordinated AP based on the path loss being higher than a threshold).
With respect to claim 6, Wang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify an interference based on a link on which the information is provided from at the STA (See paragraph 43 and paragraph 60 of Wang et al. for reference to identifying interference for each link between the APs and the STAs).
With respect to claim 14, Wang et al. discloses wherein the information is transmitted on a same link on which an interference is experienced from the second AP (See paragraph 43 and paragraph 60 of Wang et al. for reference to identifying interference for each link between the APs and the STAs, such that the interference information is transmitted on a measured link).
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.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Chitrakar et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0098712 A1).
With respect to claim 7 and 15, Wang et al. does not specifically disclose selecting the at least one AP based on traffic information included in the information, wherein the traffic information provides performance metrics that need to be met for a traffic stream or a traffic identifier that identifies a type of traffic that needs to be served for the traffic stream. However, Chitrakar et al., in the field of communications, discloses an AP requesting another AP to set up Coordinated SP for a Multi-AP Coordination scheme based on a specific traffic type of the STAs, i.e. a low-latency traffic type (See paragraphs 84-85 and paragraph 97 of Chitrakar et al.). Selecting APs to perform coordination based on the traffic type of STAs has the advantage of optimizing communication for the specific traffic requirements of the STAs. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Chitrakar et al., to combine selecting APs to perform coordination based on the traffic type of STAs, as suggested by Chitrakar et al., within the system and method of Wang et al., with the motivation being to optimize communication for the specific traffic requirements of the STAs.
Claims 8-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Han et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0040642 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Wang et al. does not specifically disclose calculating a metric that predicts a change in performance from performing the multi-AP coordination; and determining that the metric satisfies a threshold.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, Wang et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the information comprises information indicating expected improvement at the STA if a source of interference is eliminated, wherein the improvement is at least one of an expected improvement in signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR), a data rate improvement, a throughput improvement, or a latency improvement.
With further respect to claims 8-9 and 16, Han et al., in the field of communications, discloses a STA sending a message to an AP requesting multi-AP coordination based on a trigger that may predict an expected improvement, i.e. a lowering of interference to increase SINR power level to a desired, i.e. threshold, level (See paragraphs 47-49 and Table 2 of Han et al.). Triggering multi-AP coordination based on a predicted improvement in SINR for a STA has the advantage of only performing multi-AP coordination when it is determined that the coordination will have an predicted improvement on communications between the AP and STA. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Han et al., to combine triggering multi-AP coordination based on a predicted improvement in SINR for a STA, as suggested by Han et al., within the system and method of Wang et al., with the motivation being to only perform multi-AP coordination when it is determined that the coordination will have an predicted improvement on communications between the AP and STA.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Ryu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0107604 A1).
With respect to claims 10 and 17, Wang et al. does not specifically disclose announcing information related to membership for multi-AP coordination to the STA; wherein the information related to the membership comprises information regarding one or more APs involved in the multi-AP coordination. However, Ryu et al., in the field of communications, discloses to an AP announcing the BSSIDs and BSS colors of other APs belonging to the same multi-AP coordination group (See paragraph 50 of Ryu et al.). Announcing the BSSIDs and BSS colors of other APs belonging to the same multi-AP coordination group has the advantage of preventing undesired transmissions from STAs (See paragraph 50 of Ryu et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Ryu et al., to combine announcing the BSSIDs and BSS colors of other APs belonging to the same multi-AP coordination group, as suggested by Ryu et al., within the system and method of Wang et al., with the motivation being to prevent undesired transmissions from STAs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461