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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/457819, filed 07 April 2023, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-13 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 December 2025.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made in that claims 1-13 and 20 have been canceled and claims 21-34 have been added in the instant application presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 14, 19, 21, 24, 29, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calcev et al. (US 2013/0142095) (hereinafter as Calcev).
Regarding Claim 14. Calcev station (STA) comprising:
one or more processors (pars [0007-0009] discusses a processor and a computer readable storage medium); and
memory (pars [0007-0009] discusses a processor and a computer readable storage medium) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the STA to:
receive, from a first access point (AP), a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (management packet) indicating offloading of traffic from the first AP to a second AP (one or more bits can be used for signaling a management packet or data packet, for signaling a Class 1 destination or Class 2 destination, and/or to signal STA to STA communications, STA to AP communications, AP to STA communications, or AP to AP communications, par [0021], For example, the first network component 310 and the second network component 320 may be, respectively, an AP and a STA, an AP and a second AP, a STA and an AP, a STA and a second STA, an AP and a relay, a STA and a relay, a relay and an AP, or a relay and a STA. The STA may be an offload device that offloads traffic from a first wireless network (e.g., a cellular network) to a second wireless network (e.g., a WiFi network); and
based on receiving the first PPDU indicating the offloading of traffic from the first AP to the second AP, decode a frame contained in a second PPDU transmitted by the second AP (par [0021] and If the SIG is received and decoded by a relay or an AP, then the receiver decodes the packet 302. Other devices (e.g., STAs) can receive such packet 302 and go to sleep using the network address vector (NAV) setup. In one scenario, the received SIG indicates that the packet 302 is sent from an offload device and carries UL traffic. A sensor device or an offloading device (e.g., an STA) that receives such packet 302 does not process the data (or payload) in the packet 302. Alternatively, an AP that receives such packet 302 processes the packet data. In another scenario, the received SIG indicates a broadcast message to a destination class of devices (sensor or offloading devices), par [0026]).
Regarding Claim 19. Calcev teaches the STA of claim 14, wherein the offloading of traffic from the first AP to the second AP is based on the traffic being of a first category (a Class 1 destination or Class 2 destination, par [0021]).
Regarding Claim 21. Calcev teaches the STA of claim 14, wherein the first AP comprises a current AP with which the STA is associated, and wherein the second AP comprises a target AP for a transition by the STA (the transmission type may be unicast transmission, broadcast transmission, transmission from AP to STA, relay or second AP, transmission from STA to AP, relay, or second STA, or transmission from relay to AP, STA, or second relay, par [0037]).
Regarding Claims 24, 29, 32, these method claims comprise limitations substantially the same, as those discussed in claim 14, 19, and 21 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding Claims 33-34, this non-transitory computer-readable medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same, as those discussed in claims 14 and 23 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable.
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.
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcev and in further view of Kim et al. (Transmission Opportunity-Based Distributed OBSS/PD Determination Method in IEEE 802.11ax Networks)
Regarding Claim 15, Calcev teaches the STA of claim 14 as discussed above.
Calcev does not explicitly teach wherein the STA is associated with the first AP, and wherein the second AP comprises an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) AP with which the STA is not associated.
However, Kim teaches a transmission opportunity based distributed OBSS/PD determination method in IEEE 802.11ax networks including wherein the STA is associated with the first AP, and wherein the second AP comprises an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) AP with which the STA is not associated (If node 1 and node 2 are located in the overlapped service coverage of both AP 1 and AP 2, any transmissions between AP 1 and node 1 will interfere with that between AP 2 and node 2, and vice versa. However, since AP 1 and AP 2 operate independently, it is challenging to coordinate the interference between different networks. To mitigate the OBSS interference problem, the OBSS packet detection (OBSS/PD) threshold which is in inverse proportion to the transmit power is recently added in IEEE 802.11ax. When a node detects OBSS signals with higher power than the OBSS/PD threshold, the node defers its transmission to avoid signal collision between BSSs. On the other hand, when the received power of the detected signal is lower than the OBSS/PD threshold, the node begins its transmission, page 1 Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kim in Calcev to an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) AP. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avoid signal collisions.
Regarding Claim 25, this method claim comprises limitations substantially the same, as those discussed in claim 15 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claims 16-17 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcev and in further view of 802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame (DL MU-OFDMA) (see: 802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame (DL MU-OFDMA) - WiFi)
Regarding Claim 16. Calcev teaches the STA of claim 14.
Calcev does not explicitly teach wherein the first PPDU comprises a trigger frame.
However, 802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame discloses wherein a first PPDU comprises a trigger frame (figure 9-64a-Trigger frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of 802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame in Calcev to schedule and allocate resources. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine Calcev/802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame to reduce overhead and to improve efficiency in offloading.
Regarding Claim 17. The combined teachings of Calcev/802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame teach the STA of claim 16, wherein a receiver address (RA) field of the trigger frame comprises an address of the second AP, and wherein a user info field of the trigger frame comprises an address of the STA (802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame: RA/TA field: it’s a broadcast frame so receiver address will be always ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff and Transmitter address will be AP. Fields are arranged as legacy frames, but 2 information fields are new and need to look at them. These 2 fields are: 1. Common info and 2. User info. User info as the name suggests this field shows information related to users. This should show what type of transmission AP is setting for client devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of 802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame in Calcev to schedule and allocate resources. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine Calcev/802.11ax MU-Trigger Frame to reduce overhead and to improve efficiency in offloading.
Regarding Claims 26-27, this method claim comprises limitations substantially the same, as those discussed in claims 16-17 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcev and in further view of IEEE Std 802.11e 2005 (see: 802.11e-2005 - IEEE Standard for Information technology--Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific requirements--Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - Amendment 8: Medium Access Control (MAC) Quality of Service Enhancements | IEEE Standard | IEEE Xplore)
Regarding Claim 18. Calcev teaches the STA of claim 14 as discussed above.
Calcev does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA to transmit, to the second AP, a third PPDU comprising a BlockAck (BA) frame when a receiver address of the frame in the second PPDU is equal to an address of the STA.
However, IEEE Std 802.11e discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA to transmit, to the second AP, a third PPDU comprising a BlockAck (BA) frame when a receiver address of the frame in the second PPDU is equal to an address of the STA. (The TA field is the address of the QSTA transmitting the BlockAck frame, 7.2.1.8, BlockAck frame format, page 31, BlockAck can be used for acknowledging receipt of an MPDUs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of IEEE Std 802.11e to Ack PDUs in Calcev. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine Calcev/ IEEE Std 802.11e to reduce overhead and improve efficiency.
Regarding Claim 28, these method claims comprise limitations substantially the same, as those discussed in claims 18 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claims 22-23 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcev and in further view of Kneckt et al. (US 2015/0036594 A1) (hereinafter as Kneckt).
Regarding Claim 22. Calcev teaches the STA of claim 21 as discussed above.
Calcev does not teach wherein the first PPDU indicates that transition preparation from the first AP to the second AP is completed.
However, Kneckt in a similar field of endeavor discloses a link setup level coordination wherein the first PPDU indicates that transition preparation from the first AP to the second AP is completed (the selected AP is a verified AP of a trusted access network, the eNB can then command the terminal to create a link to associate with the AP. The UE can engage in ARP and DHCP procedures to bootstrap and then report back to the eNB that the association is complete and the UE has a valid IP address, par [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Kneckt in Calcev to prepare a link between a first AP and second AP. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine Calcev/Kneckt to benefit from link setup level coordination.
Regarding Claim 23. the combined teachings of Calcev/Kneckt teach the STA of claim 22, wherein the first PPDU indicates that at least one link is established between the STA and the second AP (Kneckt: wireless link setup may include exchange of multiple frames, multiple procedural phases and multiple procedures before the link is available for offloading, it may be necessary and beneficial for the network to understand the level to which the terminal has prepared the link to a candidate access point, par [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a link between a first AP and second AP. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine Calcev/Kneckt to benefit from link setup level coordination.
Regarding Claims 30-31 these method claims comprise limitations substantially the same, as those discussed in claims 22-23 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MEJIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:30 AM-6:30 PM EST.
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, CHRISTOPHER PARRY can be reached at (571)272-8328. 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.
/ANTHONY MEJIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights