DETAILED ACTION
The following is a non-final Office action in response to the current application filed March 11, 2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 3/11/24, 9/3/24, and 4/15/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97 and 1.98 and have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 18, and 20 are objected to because the claims have minor clarity and grammatical informalities.
Claim 1
A first access point (AP) device in a wireless network, the AP device comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to cause the first AP to:
receive information related to a target wake time (TWT) schedule established in a second basic service set (BSS), wherein the second BSS is established by a second AP device; and
ensure that a transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a first BSS ends before a start time of a TWT service period of the TWT schedule established in the second BSS, wherein the first BSS is established by the first AP device.
Claim 2
The first AP device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP to: abstain from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS during the TWT service period.
Claim 3
The first AP device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP to:
abstain from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS after the start time of the TWT service period; and
initiate communication with a station associated with the first AP device in a time indicated from the second AP device, wherein the time is before an end time of the TWT service period.
Claim 5
The first AP device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the AP point to:
abstain from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS after the start time of the TWT service period;
receive a trigger frame to solicit a response frame from the second AP device; and
initiate communication with a station associated with the first AP device before an end time of the TWT service period.
Claim 6
The first AP device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP to:
receive a request frame for multi-AP coordination from the second AP device; and
transmit a response frame indicating acceptance of the request for multi-AP coordination to the second AP device.
Claim 7
The first AP device of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP device to:
receive an announcement frame for the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device; and
transmit a frame indicating capability to participate in the multi-AP coordination to the second AP device.
Claim 9
The first AP device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP to: transmit a TWT element including information for the TWT schedule to one or more stations associated with the first AP device.
Claim 11
The first AP device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP device to:
receive a request frame for multi-AP coordination from a controller;
transmit a response frame indicating acceptance of the request for multi-AP coordination to the controller;
receive a TWT coordination information including information related to the TWT schedule from the controller; and
transmit an acknowledgement to the controller in response to the TWT coordination information.
Claim 12
A station in a wireless network, the station comprising:
a memory;
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to cause the station to:
receive a target wake time (TWT) element from a first [[AP]] access point (AP) device which is associated with the station, wherein the TWT element includes information indicating that a TWT schedule corresponding to the TWT element is established in a second service set (BSS) that is established by a second AP device; and
ensure that a transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a first BSS ends before a start time of a TWT service period of the TWT schedule, wherein the first BSS is established by the first AP device.
Claim 13
The station of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the station to: abstain from transmitting a frame to the first AP device during the TWT service period.
Claim 14
The station of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the station to:
abstain from transmitting a frame to the first AP device after the start time of the TWT service period; and
initiate communication with the first AP device in a time indicated from the first AP device, wherein the time is before an end time of the TWT service period.
Claim 15
The station of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the station to:
abstain from transmitting a frame to the first AP device after the start time of the TWT service period; and
initiate communication with the first AP device when a trigger frame to solicit a response frame is received from the first AP device before an end time of the TWT service period.
Claim 17
A first access point (AP) device in a wireless network, the AP device comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to cause the first AP to:
transmit a request frame for multi-AP coordination to a second AP device, wherein the request frame includes a [[TWT]] target wake time (TWT) schedule established in a first basic service set (BSS) and the first BSS is established by the first AP device; and
receive a response frame indicating acceptance of the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device.
Claim 18
The first AP device of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP to:
transmit an announce frame for the multi-AP coordination to one or more second AP devices, wherein the announce frame includes [[a]] mode information for the multi-AP coordination; and
receive a frame indicating capability to participate in the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device.
Claim 20
The first AP device of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP to: transmit a trigger frame to the second AP device before an end time of a TWT service period corresponding to the TWT schedule, wherein the trigger frame indicates that the second AP is allowed to initiate communication with an associated station in the second BSS.
Appropriate correction is highly recommended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 5 is directed to the “first AP device of claim 1” and further requires that “the [processor] is further configured to cause: … receiving a trigger frame to solicit a response frame from the second AP device.” This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear if the “processor” receives the “trigger frame” (and if so, from where does the processor receive such a frame since none of the figures show this feature), or if the “first AP device” receives the “trigger frame” and from what entity the “first AP device” receives this frame because the figures do not show an AP device receiving a trigger frame then soliciting another AP device for a response. Additionally, there is confusion as to whether or not the “trigger frame” is then sent to the “second AP device” or not so as to “to solicit a response frame” or if some other message is sent, or in what way the solicitation happens. In other words, claim 5 is not clear on its face, and the specification/drawings does not clear up the ambiguity because none of the figures show a first AP device (or its processor) receiving a trigger frame from some other entity that causes solicitation of a response frame from a second AP device. For these reasons, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under section 112(b).
For purposes of examination, this claim is understood to mean that the first AP device generates a trigger frame that is sent to a second AP device to solicit a response frame. See e.g., Appl. as filed, Figs. 12, 16, 17, 20.
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 1-4, 8-10, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ajami1.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites and Ajami teaches:
A first access point (AP) device in a wireless network (Ajami, ¶64, Fig. 6, AP1 or AP2 are a “first access point” in a wireless network; see also Ajami, Fig. 5, APs 511, 512), the AP device comprising:
a memory (Ajami, ¶45, Fig. 3, memory 330); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Ajami, ¶¶45, 47, Fig. 3, processor 320), the processor configured to cause:
receiving information related to a target wake time (TWT) schedule established in a second basic service set (BSS), wherein the second BSS is established by a second AP device (Ajami, ¶¶2, 62, 63, 67, 71, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (either may be “a first AP device”) may receive a beacon frame 603, 703, which includes a TWT schedule for AP3 (r-TWT SP3), AP3 is part of its own (“second”) BSS (¶56, Fig. 5), and AP1 and AP2 are part of “a first BSS” (¶56, Fig. 5)); and
ensuring that a transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a first BSS ends before a start time of a TWT service period of the TWT schedule established in the second BSS, wherein the first BSS is established by the first AP device (Ajami, ¶¶61, 69, 72, 78, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (“first AP device”) ensures that any communications (“TXOP”) in r-TWT SP1, SP2 end prior to r-TWT SP3 as indicated by the “Prevent Communications” indication in Figs. 6, 7; see also Fig. 4).
Dependent Claim 2
Claim 2 recites and Ajami teaches the “first AP device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause: abstaining from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS during the TWT service period.” Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2.
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 recites and Ajami teaches:
the processor is further configured to cause:
abstaining from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS after the start time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2); and
initiating communication with a station associated with the first AP device in a time indicated from the second AP device, wherein the time is before an end time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, the r-TWT SP3 is a TWT service period, and communication between AP1 or AP2 and a station, such as any of STAs 501-505, occurs before the end of this service period).
Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 recites and Ajami teaches the “first AP device of claim 1, wherein the TWT schedule established in the second BSS is associated with communication of latency sensitive traffic.” Ajami, ¶¶61, 64-66, 69-75.
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 recites and Ajami teaches the “first AP device of claim 1, wherein information related to the TWT schedule is received from the second AP device.” Ajami, ¶¶2, 62, 63, 67, 71, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (either may be “a first AP device”) may receive a beacon frame 603, 703, which includes a TWT schedule for AP3 (r-TWT SP3), AP3 is part of its own (“second”) BSS (¶56, Fig. 5), and AP1 and AP2 are part of “a first BSS” (¶56, Fig. 5).
Dependent Claim 9
Claim 9 recites and Ajami teaches the “the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting a TWT element including information for the TWT schedule to one or more stations associated with the first AP device.” Ajami, ¶¶35, 66.
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 recites and Ajami teaches the “first AP device of claim 9, wherein the TWT element includes information indicating that the TWT schedule is established in the second BSS.” Ajami, ¶¶35, 66.
Independent Claim 12
Claim 12 recites and Ajami teaches:
A station in a wireless network (Ajami, ¶75, Fig. 5, any of STAs 501-506 are stations in a wireless network), the station comprising:
a memory (Ajami, ¶37, Fig. 2, memory 240);
a processor coupled to the memory (Ajami, ¶¶37-38, Fig. 2, processor 220), the process configured to cause:
receiving a target wake time (TWT) element from a first AP device which is associated with the station, wherein the TWT element includes information indicating that a TWT schedule corresponds to the TWT element is established in a second service set (BSS) established by a second AP device (Ajami, ¶¶62, 63, 67, 71, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (either may be “a first AP device”) may send a beacon frame 601/701, 602/702, which includes a TWT schedule for AP3 (r-TWT SP3) (see id., ¶68), AP3 is part of its own (“second”) BSS (¶56, Fig. 5), and AP1 and AP2 are part of “a first BSS” (¶56, Fig. 5)); and
ensuring that a transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a first BSS ends before a start time of a TWT service period of the TWT schedule, wherein the first BSS is established by the first AP device (Ajami, ¶¶61, 68, 69, 72, 78, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (“first AP device”) ensures that any communications (“TXOP”) in r-TWT SP1, SP2 end prior to r-TWT SP3 as indicated by the “Prevent Communications” indication in Figs. 6, 7; see also Fig. 4).
Dependent Claim 13
Claim 13 recites and Ajami teaches the “station of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to cause: abstaining from transmitting a frame to the first AP device during the TWT service period.” Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2.
Dependent Claim 14
Claim 14 recites and Ajami teaches:
the processor is further configured to cause:
abstaining from transmitting a frame to the first AP device after the start time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2); and
initiating communication with the first AP device in a time indicated from the first AP device, wherein the time is before an end time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, the r-TWT SP3 is a TWT service period, and communication between AP1 or AP2 and a station, such as any of STAs 501-505, occurs before the end of this service period).
Dependent Claim 16
Claim 16 recites and Ajami teaches the “station of claim 12, wherein the TWT schedule established in the second BSS is associated with communication of latency sensitive traffic.” Ajami, ¶¶61, 64-66, 69-75.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
The following applies to all rejections below, absent any discussion elaborating on any of the elements. Regarding element 1, the scope and contents of the prior art are evident based on the citations and explanations provided in the rejections below. See MPEP § 2141(II)(A). Regarding element 2, the differences between the prior art and claims are noted in the rejections below. See MPEP § 2141(II)(B). Regarding element 3, the level of ordinary skill is expressly or implicitly found in the prior art of record as applied in the rejections below, where the teachings of the art show a presumed knowledge of the relevant art at the relevant time. See MPEP §§ 2141(II)(C), 2141.03(III). Regarding element 4, to the extent that there is evidence available as to secondary considerations, they will be addressed below, otherwise, it is assumed there are no secondary considerations to take into account.
Claims 5-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami in view of Lu2, both of which are in the same field of multiple access point scheduling as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 5
Claim 5 recites and Ajami teaches:
the process is further configured to cause:
abstaining from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS after the start time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2);
…; and
initiating communication with a station associated with the first AP device before an end time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, the r-TWT SP3 is a TWT service period, and communication between AP1 or AP2 and a station, such as any of STAs 501-505, occurs before the end of this service period).
Ajami does not teach “receiving a trigger frame to solicit a response frame from the second AP device,” as further recited in the claim. Lu remedies this and teaches that during a TWT service period, a trigger frame may be received/generated by the processor of the AP that initiates a solicitation of a response from another AP device. Lu, ¶¶171, 174, Fig. 12, AP 1 generates/sends the Multi-AP trigger frame to AP2, which causes AP2 to generate a DL PPDU, which then causes STA1-1 to send back an ACK to AP2, which finally results in AP2 sending the ACK (“a response frame”) to AP1; alternatively, as shown in Fig. 12, AP1 may receive a trigger frame from AP2, send a DL PPDU to STA1-1, which causes STA1-1 to send back an ACK to AP2, which finally results in AP2 sending the ACK (“a response frame”) to AP1.
It is noted that Lu does not make clear with respect to Fig. 12 if the ACK message is only sent to AP2 and then forwarded to AP1 from STA1-1, or if STA1-1 sends both AP1 and AP2 an ACK message. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that these are the only two options for sending an ACK message based on the description in Lu, and both achieve the same desired result of sending a response (ACK) frame to an AP that has transmitted downlink data. In other words, it would have been obvious to try either option and achieve the same predictable result. See MPEP § 2143, subsection I.E. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to send trigger frames from a first AP device to a second AP device to solicit a response frame, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶174.
Dependent Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
the process is further configured to cause:
receiving a request frame for multi-AP coordination from the second AP device; and
transmitting a response frame indicating acceptance of the request for multi-AP coordination to the second AP device.
Ajami does not teach these additionally recited limitations. Lu remedies this and teaches “receiving a request frame for multi-AP coordination from the second AP device,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, in the second negotiation, AP2 sends a “rTWT request 4” for multi-AP coordination to AP1), and “transmitting a response frame indicating acceptance of the request for multi-AP coordination to the second AP device,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP1 sends an “rTWT response 3” that accepts the request for multi-AP coordination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive a request frame from a second AP device and sending a response, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
the process is further configured to cause:
receiving an announcement frame for the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device; and
transmitting a frame indicating capability to participate in the multi-AP coordination to the second AP device.
Ajami does not teach these additionally recited limitations. Lu remedies this and teaches “receiving an announcement frame for the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, in the first negotiation, AP2 receives an “rTWT request 2” for multi-AP coordination to AP1), and “transmitting a frame indicating capability to participate in the multi-AP coordination to the second AP device,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP2 sends an “rTWT response 1” that accepts the request for multi-AP coordination, which is an indication of being capable to participate in the multi-AP coordination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive an announcement frame from a second AP device and sending a frame with capability information, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Independent Claim 17
Claim 17 recites and Ajami teaches:
A first access point (AP) device in a wireless network (Ajami, ¶64, Fig. 6, AP1 or AP2 are a “first access point” in a wireless network; see also Ajami, Fig. 5, APs 511, 512), the AP device comprising:
a memory (Ajami, ¶45, Fig. 3, memory 330); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Ajami, ¶¶45, 47, Fig. 3, processor 320), the processor configured to cause:
transmitting a request frame for multi-AP coordination to a second AP device, wherein the request frame includes a TWT schedule established in a first basic service set (BSS) and the first BSS is established by the first AP device (Ajami, ¶¶2, 62, 63, 67, 71, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (either may be “a first AP device”) may receive a beacon frame 603, 703 (“a request”), which includes a TWT schedule for a first BSS associated with AP1 and AP2 (¶56, Fig. 5) and where AP1 and AP2 are AP coordinated).
Ajami does not teach the additional limitations recited in the claim. Lu remedies this and teaches “receiving a response frame indicating acceptance of the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device.” Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP1 sends an “rTWT response 3” that AP2 receives, and which accepts the request for multi-AP coordination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive a request frame from a second AP device and sending a response, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Dependent Claim 18
Claim 18 recites:
the process is further configured to cause:
transmitting an announce frame for the multi-AP coordination to one or more second AP devices; and
receiving a frame indicating capability to participate in the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device.
Ajami does not teach these additionally recited limitations. Lu remedies this and teaches “transmitting an announce frame for the multi-AP coordination to one or more second AP devices,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, in the first negotiation, AP2 receives an “rTWT request 2” for multi-AP coordination to AP1), and “receiving a frame indicating capability to participate in the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP2 sends an “rTWT response 1” that accepts the request for multi-AP coordination, which is an indication of being capable to participate in the multi-AP coordination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive an announcement frame from a second AP device and sending a frame with capability information, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Dependent Claim 19
Claim 19 recites and Ajami teaches the “first AP device of claim 17, wherein the TWT schedule is associated with communication of latency sensitive traffic.” Ajami, ¶¶61, 64-66, 69-75.
Dependent Claim 20
Claim 20 recites additional limitations not taught in Ajami. Even so, Lu remedies this and teaches: “the first AP device of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting a trigger frame to the second AP device before an end time of a TWT service period corresponding to the TWT schedule, wherein the trigger frame indicates that the second AP is allowed to initiate communication with an associated station in the second BSS.” Lu, ¶¶171, 174, Fig. 12, AP 1 generates/sends the Multi-AP trigger frame to AP2, which causes AP2 to generate a DL PPDU, which then causes STA1-1 to send back an ACK to AP2, which finally results in AP2 sending the ACK (“a response frame”) to AP1; alternatively, as shown in Fig. 12, AP1 may receive a trigger frame from AP2, send a DL PPDU to STA1-1, which causes STA1-1 to send back an ACK to AP2, which finally results in AP2 sending the ACK (“a response frame”) to AP1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive an announcement frame from a second AP device and sending a frame with capability information, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami in view of Ahn3, both of which are in the same field of multiple access point scheduling as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 15
Claim 15 recites and Ajami teaches:
the station of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to cause:
abstaining from transmitting a frame to the first AP device after the start time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2).
Ajami does not teach the additionally recited limitation. Ahn remedies this and teaches “initiating communication with the first AP device when a trigger frame to solicit a response frame is received from the first AP device before an end time of the TWT service period.” Ahn, ¶227, Fig. 23, the STA receives a trigger frame during a TWT service period, which solicits a WU response. 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 system of Ajami to initiate communication during a TWT service period, as in Ahn, so that even though during a TWT service period, buffered data ready for transmission can be communicated from an AP to a STA. See id.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, 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: none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests, either alone or when combined, all of the limitations of claim 11, which depends from claim 1. For example, while the prior art teaches, as explained above, multi-AP coordination, TWT SP scheduling, and communication with STAs, the prior art does not necessarily teach or suggest “the first AP device … receiving a request frame for multi-AP coordination from a controller; transmitting a response frame indicating acceptance of the request for multi-AP coordination to the controller receiving an TWT coordination information including information related to the TWT schedule from the controller” and then, in particular, “transmitting an acknowledgement to the controller in response to the TWT coordination information.” Where the term “controller” is understood to be a centralized controller that controls, or at least communicates various control messages, to the APs. See e.g., Spec. as filed, Figs. 19, 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication nos. 2025/0071813, 2024/0340953, 2024/0098712, and WIPO Patent Application Publication no. WO 2024/178423 all describe various inventions with respect to target wake time operations in multi-AP environments. The citation of these references, which are not applied in the rejections above, should not be taken as an indication that the invention described in the instant application is distinguishable from them. These references, along with any newly found references in the future, may still be applied in subsequent Office actions to reject the claims in their current form or as amended.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 U.S. Patent Application Publication no. 2023/0164709 A1, to Ajami et al. (“Ajami”).
2 U.S. Patent Application Publication no. 2025/0294633 A1, to Lu et al. (“Lu”).
3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0141770 A1, to Ahn et al. (“Ahn”).