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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-8,10,12-17 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments (respective resource unit (RU), respective received signal strength indicator (RSSI)).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US 2021/0314879 A1) hereinafter Seok in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0120427 A1, made of record in the IDS of 4/24/2025) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Seok teaches a method (method; para. 06-09) comprising: receiving, by a first network device (access point (AP) [AP2 / first] receives request; para. 50-51 and Fig. 3), an instruction from a second network device regarding reporting a radio frequency environment of the first network device (request from AP1 [second] requests AP2 to report per-resource unit (RU) ; para. 50-51 and Fig. 3, wireless communication; para. 46-47); measuring, by the first network device, for each respective resource unit (RU) of a plurality of RUs within the radio frequency environment, a respective received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value associated with transmission within the respective RU (AP2 measures per-RU received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) transmitted for performing RSSI measurements; para. 50-51 and Fig. 3); sending, by the first network device, a report to the second network device, comprising the RSSI value for each respective RU of the plurality of RUs (AP2 transmits per-RU RSSI report to AP1; para. 50-51 and Fig. 3).
While Seok discloses RU allocation/scheduling, and coordination using announcements based on measurement report, Seok does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the first network device, an allocation for one or more RUs, of the plurality of RUs from the second network device based on the report; and using, by the first network device, the allocated one or more RUs for data exchange.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches receiving, by the first network device, an allocation for one or more RUs, of the plurality of RUs from the second network device based on the report (AP slave [first] receives available bandwidth (BW)/RU from master AP [second]; para. 55 and Fig. 8, available BW based on coordinate spatial reuse (CSR), CSR based on interference measurements; para. 06); and using, by the first network device, the allocated one or more RUs for data exchange (perform transmission using grant; para. 55 and Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Wang to the system of Seok, where Seok’s coordinating power levels (para. 04-05) along with Wang’s coordinated reuse (para. 06) improves the system by improving use of resources with reduced interference.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Seok and Wang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Seok further teaches wherein the second network device, based on the report received from the first network device, generates a map of the radio frequency environment (at completion of measurement reporting, sharing AP [second] compiles table of interference at APs based on reporting; para. 52-56 and Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Seok and Wang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Seok further teaches wherein the second network device, based on the report received from the first network device, performs at least one of: allocating the one or more RUs, of the plurality of RUs, to the first network device, switching multi-AP coordination (MAPC) mode, adjusting one or more transmission power settings of the first network device (sharing AP1 [second] transmits power information to shared AP2 [first], AP2 [first] uses power information to transmit at power that prevents/mitigates interference; para. 77, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), or modifying one or more medium access parameters of the first network device.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Seok and Wang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Seok further teaches wherein the first and second network devices are within a first network cell (AP1 and AP2 overlap; para. 48-49 and Figs. 1-2), and the second network device sends the report to a third network device within a second network cell (multiple APs [first, second, third] operating in multiple overlapping basic service sets (BSS) [first, second, third]; para. 06, interference reports generated by shared APs [first]; para. 61, multiple sharing APs [second, third] performs measurement and report [first APs send measurement report to sharing APs on corresponding BSS [third]]; para. 55).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Seok and Wang teaches the limitation of previous claim 7.
Seok further teaches wherein the first and second network cells form a coordination group (CG) (coordination by sharing/shared APs in overlapping BSS [group]; para. [06, 23, 48-49, 71]), and the third network device, based on the report, optimizes frequency reuse across the first and second network cells (when AP1 [second BSS] and AP2 [first BSS] configured for coordination using spatial reuse, AP1 coordinates transmit power of AP2 to operate without causing substantial interference between APs; para. 48).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including system (system; para. 85; Seok), one or more computer processors (processor 1205; para. [16, 86] and Fig. 12; Seok); one or more memories collectively containing one or more programs (software/firmware in memory 1210; para. 86 and Fig. 12; Seok), which, when executed by the one or more computer processors, perform operations (software/firmware executed by processor; para. 86; Seok).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Wang, and further in view of Oteri et al. (US 2018/0139635 A1, made of record in the IDS of 4/24/2025) hereinafter Oteri.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Seok and Wang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Seok and Wang discloses buffer status report and beamforming report, the combination of Seok and Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the instruction comprises a reporting policy that specifies at least one of (i) a granularity of measuring the RSSI value or (ii) a type of the report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oteri teaches wherein the instruction comprises a reporting policy that specifies at least one of (i) a granularity of measuring the RSSI value or (ii) a type of the report (Table 3 showing report type; para. 113, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Oteri to the modified system of Seok and Wang, where Seok and Wang’s modified system along with Oteri’s spatial sharing (para. 03) improves the system by improving use of shared resources with reduced interference.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Seok, Wang, and Oteri teaches the limitation of previous claim 3.
While the combination of Seok and Wang discloses thresholds, the combination of Seok and Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the type of the report comprises at least one of a periodic report, an on-demand report, or a threshold-driven report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oteri further teaches wherein the type of the report comprises at least one of a periodic report (measurement report based on condition / trigger / autonomous / comparison / threshold; para. 112, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), an on-demand report (measurement report based on polling; para. 112), or a threshold-driven report (measurement report based on threshold; para. 112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Oteri to the modified system of Seok, Wang, and Oteri, where Seok, Wang, and Oteri’s modified system along with Oteri’s spatial sharing (para. 03) improves the system by improving use of shared resources with reduced interference.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patil et al. (US 2020/0154443 A1) discloses full-duplex access points.
Lanante et al. (US 2025/0193926 A1) discloses coordinated spatial reuse.
Sugaya et al. (US 2021/0153031 A1) discloses communication management device, communication device, communication management method, and communication method.
Cariou et al. (US 2018/0176921 A1) discloses a report for inter-BSS interference avoidance.
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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights