DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Cross Reference to Related Applications
2. This application is a continuation application of U.S. patent application No. 17/423,651 filed on July 16, 2021, which is a U.S. National Phase of International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2019/046034 filed on November 25, 2019, which claims priority benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2019-010696 filed in the Japan Patent Office on January 24, 2019. Each of the above-referenced applications is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claims status
4. Based on the Response to Restriction Requirement filed on June 09, 2026, applicant elects, to prosecute Group I, as claims 1-17 and 18 without traverse. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and 19 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, claims 1-18 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statements submitted on July 01, 2024, June 09, 2025 and March 16, 2026,
Drawings
6. The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on May 02, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Double Patenting
7. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of Patent No. (US 12,010,748 B2). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application and Patent Number (US 12,010,748 B2) all disclose the method of sharing data to be simultaneously transmitted to a single communication terminal between adjacent access points; recognizing that sharing of the data has been completed; and transmitting the shared data. (please see below the mapping of claims; the table below shows only Example of Claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of Patent No. US 12,010,748 B2).
Claim
Instant Application No. 18/652,929 (limitations)
Patent No. US 12,010,748 B2 (limitations)
Claim
1
A communication apparatus that operates as an access point, the communication apparatus comprising: a communicating unit configured to transmit and receive wireless signals; and a control unit configured to control communication operations in the communicating unit, the communication operations including a communication operation for sharing data to be simultaneously transmitted to a single communication terminal between adjacent access points and a communication operation for recognizing that sharing of the data has been completed.
A first communication apparatus that operates as an access point, the first communication apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to: transmit and receive wireless signals; control a first communication operation of a plurality of communication operations to share data between adjacent access points during a time section in which a first communication terminal receives an interference signal from an interference source, wherein the adjacent access points are adjacent to the first communication apparatus, and, the share data is transmitted simultaneously by the first communication apparatus and the adjacent access points; and control a second communication operation of the plurality of communication operations to recognize that the transmission of the share data has been completed.
1
Claim Objection (minor informalities)
8. Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, the claim recite the term "… so as …" which is not a positively cited claim language.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 15, the claims recite the term "… capable of …" which is not a positively cited claim language.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the term "… incapable of …" which is not a positively cited claim language.
Regarding claim 17, the claims recite the term "… can be ..." which is not a positively cited claim language.
Language that suggests or makes optional/intended use (for example, “so that”; “so as”; “thereby”; “capable of”; “incapable of”; “adapted to”; “able to”; “enable to”; “can be”; “may be”; “should be”; “….able”; “combinable”; “configurable”) but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation(s). Such clauses may render parts of the claims optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04). [Note: the limitation recites after “so as” clause is not given patentable weight because it may be optional for the positively processing steps. The term may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. A similar alternative term is “configured to” or a positive action verb (for example- “cause”, “generate”) to perform the function without any unnecessary ambiguity].
Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examinations, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
35 USC § 112 (f) Claim Limitations Analysis
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
10. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
11. Claims 1-17 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claims 1-17, the limitation recite(s) “a communication unit configured to transmit and receive…;and a control unit configured to control communication …”.
The claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder ("unit") is not preceded by a structural modifier. For example, "configured to control" does not add any structure to the generic term.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification (Figs. 20-21, paragraphs [0164]-[0193]) fail to show any corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If the Applicant does not intend to have the claimed limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
14. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim elements, “a communication unit configured to transmit…”, and “a control unit, configured to control….”, is the limitation that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description (Figs. 20-21, paragraphs [0164]-[0193]) fails to sufficiently disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed functions (See MPEP 2181 1A and B).
Claims 2-17 are also rejected for the same reason as claim 1 since the claims are dependent on claim 1.
Applicant may:
a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
15. Claims 2, 6, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
MPEP §2143.03 states, in relevant part:
A claim limitation which is considered indefinite cannot be disregarded. If a claim is subject to more than one interpretation, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP §706.03(d)) and should reject the claim over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claim that renders the prior art applicable. Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984) (Claims on appeal were rejected on indefiniteness grounds only; the rejection was reversed and the case remanded to the examiner for consideration of pertinent prior art.). Compare In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) (if no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain claim language, the claim is indefinite, not obvious) and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions) (emphasis added).
MPEP §2176.06 states, in relevant part:
All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. When the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites:
“…the shared data simultaneously with the adjacent access pints…so as to multiplex the shared data with a transmission…and transmit the shared data as a multi-user …”.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites:
“…the shared data to the single communication terminal …”.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites:
“…the shared data to the single communication terminal …”.
Claims 2, 6 and 7 recite terms “the shared data” for a first time with a preceding article “the” (i.e. “the shared data” ) without prior introduction or provision of a reference antecedence for “shared data”. There appears to be no preceding recitation of “shared data” introduced for provision of antecedent basis including in claim 1 from which claims 2, 6 and 7 depend, and as such, this office action respectfully contends there is a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “the shared data” in claims 2, 6 and 7 find antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites:
“…transmitting the shared data”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claims.
Claim 8 recites term “the shared data” for a first time with a preceding article “the” (i.e. “the shared data”) without prior introduction or provision of a reference antecedence for “shared data”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (g)(2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
17. A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
18. 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 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.
19. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by RYU et al. (US 2021/0307099 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers. 62/722, 966 filed on August 26, 2018; 62/737, 874 filed on filed on September 27, 2018 and 62/790, 457 filed on January 9, 2019; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Ryu”.
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a communication apparatus that operates as an access point (Figs. 21, 23 and 22, 24, device performing procedure of the joint transmission), the communication apparatus comprising:
a communicating unit configured to transmit and receive wireless signals (paragraphs [0219]-[0220], [0257], master AP (M-AP) acts as an AP coordinator; slave AP (S-AP) may participate in joint transmission coordinated by an M-AP, and may have all the functions of a STA and an AP); and
a control unit configured to control communication operations (Figs. 21, 23 and 22, 24, Step 1 – Step 6) in the communicating unit (paragraphs [0247], [0250]-[0251], [0253], [0263]-[0265], Step 6: the AP2 and the AP3 that have received the control frame for the joint transmission through Step 5 transmit, to the STA1, the data frame previously received in the Step 3 process through the joint transmission using the information included in the corresponding control frame), the communication operations including a communication operation for sharing data to be simultaneously transmitted to a single communication terminal between adjacent access points (paragraphs [0247], [0250]-[0251], [0253], [0263]-[0265], Step 3: a data frame (may include a control or management frame) to be transmitted to the STA is transmitted to the AP2 and the AP3 after Step 1 or Step 2 through the joint transmission) and a communication operation for recognizing that sharing of the data has been completed (paragraphs [0247], [0250]-[0251], [0253], [0263]-[0265], Step 4: the AP2 and the AP3 that have received the data frame to be joint-transmitted from the AP1 transmit Ack or a Block Ack frame for the corresponding data frame).
Regarding claim 2, Ryu discloses the communicating unit is capable of transmitting and receiving a wireless signal in which a plurality of pieces of data are configured as a multiplexed stream, and the control unit is configured to perform control when transmitting the shared data simultaneously with the adjacent access points so as to multiplex the shared data with a transmission stream addressed to another communication apparatus and transmit the shared data as a multi-user multiplexed stream (Fig. 13, paragraph [0173], an AP1 starts joint transmission by sending a coordination signal to an AP2 and an AP3; the AP2 and the AP3 transmit and receive data to and from multiple STAs using OFDMA and MU-MIMO within one data packet; a STA 2 and a STA 3 are placed in different resource units (RUs). Each RU is a frequency segment; a STA 1 and a STA 4 are placed in the same resource unit using MU-MIMO; respective RUs may be transmitted through multiple spatial streams).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu discloses the communicating unit is capable of transmitting and receiving a wireless signal in which a plurality of pieces of data are configured as a multiplexed stream, and the control unit is configured to perform control so as to multiplex and communicate data to be shared between the adjacent access points as a multiplexed stream (Fig. 13, paragraph [0173], an AP1 starts joint transmission by sending a coordination signal to an AP2 and an AP3; the AP2 and the AP3 transmit and receive data to and from multiple STAs using OFDMA and MU-MIMO within one data packet; a STA 2 and a STA 3 are placed in different resource units (RUs). Each RU is a frequency segment; a STA 1 and a STA 4 are placed in the same resource unit using MU-MIMO; respective RUs may be transmitted through multiple spatial streams).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu discloses the control unit is configured to perform control so as to perform a communication operation for sharing the data between the adjacent access points during a time section in which the single communication terminal is incapable of communication (paragraph [0223], an MU RTS trigger frame (transmission from the AP1)/CTS frame (transmission from the AP2 and the AP3), a CTS-to-self frame (transmission from the AP1), or another control frame may be transmitted in order to obtain a TXOP for the data frame transmission during T1 and T2; in this case, a modified MU RTS trigger frame or a modified CTS-to-self frame and another control frame may be defined to indicate that the TXOP will be used for the multi-AP coordination transmission).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu discloses the control unit is configured to notify the adjacent access points that sharing of the data or simultaneous transmission of the shared data to the single communication terminal is to be performed (Fig. 24 (from the position of AP 1), Step 1, paragraph [0260], control frame may include the identification of the AP2 (the AID of the AP2 or the MAC Address of the AP2 assigned thereto when associated with the AP1) that participates in the joint transmission and a separate identification used for the joint transmission) by transmitting a predetermined initiation frame (Figs. 23, 24, Step 1, null data packet announcement (NDPA)).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses the control unit is configured to recognize that sharing of the data or simultaneous transmission of the shared data to the single communication terminal is to be performed based on receiving a predetermined initiation frame from the adjacent access points (Fig. 23 (from the position of AP 2), paragraph [0247], AP1 may transmit a control frame (e.g., Joint Transmission Announcement frame) for initiating joint transmission to the AP2 and the AP3 that will participate in the joint transmission; the control frame may include the identifications of the AP3 and the AP2 participating in the joint transmission (the AID of the AP2 and the AP3 or the MAC address of the AP2 and the AP3 assigned thereto when associated with the AP1) and a separate identification used for the joint transmission).
Regarding claim 10, Ryu discloses the control unit is configured to control a transmission timing of the data to be shared based on transmission of a predetermined trigger frame or reception of the trigger frame from the adjacent access points (Figs. 23, 24, paragraphs [0252], [0253], Step 3- Step 6, process through the joint transmission using the information included in the corresponding control frame).
Regarding claim 18, Ryu discloses a communication method in an access point (Figs. 21, 23 and 22, 24, method performing procedure of the joint transmission), the communication method comprising the steps of:
sharing data to be simultaneously transmitted to a single communication terminal between adjacent access points (Figs. 21, 23 and 22, 24, Step 3, paragraphs [0247], [0250], [0263], a data frame (may include a control or management frame) to be transmitted to the STA is transmitted to the AP2 and the AP3 after Step1 or Step2 through the joint transmission; the data frame (may include a control or management frame) to be transmitted to the STA may be transmitted to the AP2 after Step1 or Step2 through the joint transmission);
recognizing that sharing of the data has been completed (Figs. 21, 23 and 22, 24, Step 4, paragraphs [0251], [0264], AP2 and the AP3 that have received the data frame to be joint-transmitted from the AP1 transmit Ack or a Block Ack frame for the corresponding data frame; AP2 that has received the data frame to be joint-transmitted from the AP1 transmits an acknowledgement frame (Ack or BlockAck frame) for the corresponding data frame); and
transmitting the shared data (Figs. 21, 23 and 22, 24, Step 6, paragraphs [0253], [0265], AP2 and the AP3 that have received the control frame for the joint transmission through Step 5 transmit, to the STA1; AP2 that has received the control frame for the joint transmission through Step 5 transmits, to the STA 1, the data frame previously received in the Step 3 process through the joint transmission using the control information included in the corresponding control frame).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
20. 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 of this title, 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.
21. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU et al. (US 2021/0307099 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers. 62/722, 966 filed on August 26, 2018; 62/737, 874 filed on filed on September 27, 2018 and 62/790, 457 filed on January 9, 2019; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Ryu” in view of Discussions on Multi-AP coordination (IEEE 802.11-18/1509r0, as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 16, 2021 in parent application no.17/423,651), hereinafter “IEEE’09r0”.
Regarding claim 5, Ryu discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryu does not explicitly disclose “the control unit is configured to perform control so as to perform communication for sharing the data between the adjacent access points using a coding scheme or a modulation scheme that enables high-speed transmission”.
However, IEEE’09r0 from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the control unit is configured to perform control so as to perform communication for sharing the data between the adjacent access points using a coding scheme or a modulation scheme that enables high-speed transmission (page 3-5, Modes of Multi-AP coordination: Higher MCSs used for Coordinated OFDMA, Coordinated SU Beamforming).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the control unit is configured to perform control so as to perform communication for sharing the data between the adjacent access points using a coding scheme or a modulation scheme that enables high-speed transmission” as taught by IEEE’09r0, in the system of Ryu, so that it would categorize Joint transmissions of Multi-APs based on complexity and requirements to make sure that multi-AP coordination in EHT has no contradiction and least overlaps with the multi-AP task from WiFi alliance (IEEE’09r0, page 1).
22. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU et al. (US 2021/0307099 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers. 62/722, 966 filed on August 26, 2018; 62/737, 874 filed on filed on September 27, 2018 and 62/790, 457 filed on January 9, 2019; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Ryu” in view of Wong et al. (US 2014/0362840 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Wong”.
Regarding claim 8, Ryu discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 6.
Ryu does not explicitly disclose “the initiate frame includes information related to access points to simultaneously transmit the data to be shared”.
However, Wong from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the initiate frame includes information related to access points to simultaneously transmit the data to be shared (paragraph [0129], all APs participating in JTTP would receive a copy of the downlink data for this STA via the wired interface, and APs are instructed the exact time for transmitting this downlink data to their respective STAs; a group of coordinated APs may jointly transmit data to multiple STAs, and typically such APs are BSS edge STAs; in this instance, the same MCS should be used, and the same scrambler value should be used and the same encryption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the initiate frame includes information related to access points to simultaneously transmit the data to be shared” as taught by Wong, in the system of Ryu, so that it would provide multiple network manager coordination within single user, multiple user, multiple access, and/or MIMO wireless communications supporting wireless and wire lined communications between wireless and/or wire lined communication devices (Wong, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Ryu in view of Wong disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 8.
Wong further discloses the initiate frame further includes at least one of information related to a transmission timing of the data to be shared, information related to a coding scheme or a modulation scheme during transmission of the data to be shared, and information related to a channel for transmitting the data to be shared (paragraph [0129], all APs participating in JTTP would receive a copy of the downlink data for this STA via the wired interface, and APs are instructed the exact time for transmitting this downlink data to their respective STAs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the initiate frame further includes at least one of information related to a transmission timing of the data to be shared, information related to a coding scheme or a modulation scheme during transmission of the data to be shared, and information related to a channel for transmitting the data to be shared” as taught by Wong, in the system of Ryu, so that it would provide multiple network manager coordination within single user, multiple user, multiple access, and/or MIMO wireless communications supporting wireless and wire lined communications between wireless and/or wire lined communication devices (Wong, paragraph [0003]).
23. Claims 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU et al. (US 2021/0307099 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers. 62/722, 966 filed on August 26, 2018; 62/737, 874 filed on filed on September 27, 2018 and 62/790, 457 filed on January 9, 2019; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Ryu” in view of VERMANI et al. (US 2019/0045366 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Vermani”.
Regarding claim 11, Ryu discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 6.
Ryu does not explicitly disclose “the control unit is configured to recognize sharing of the data based on communication of a predetermined grant frame between the adjacent access points”.
However, Vermani from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the control unit is configured to recognize sharing of the data based on communication of a predetermined grant frame between the adjacent access points (Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0083]-[0084], [0098], the master AP and the slave AP and their respective NDPA; NDPA transmission may identify all STAs and number of streams being allocated to each STA and further, the NDPA may serve the purpose of announcing the NDP transmission and may serve as a synchronization message as well).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the control unit is configured to recognize sharing of the data based on communication of a predetermined grant frame between the adjacent access points” as taught by Vermani, in the system of Ryu, so that it would provide distributed communications using unused resources shared across multiple basic service sets relates to wireless communication (Vermani, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu in view of Vermani disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 11.
Vermani further discloses the control unit is configured to perform control so as to send back the grant frame to the adjacent access point having transmitted the data to be shared (Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0083]-[0084], [0098], NDPA and NDP sequentially; the purpose of announcing the NDP transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the control unit is configured to perform control so as to send back the grant frame to the adjacent access point having transmitted the data to be shared” as taught by Vermani, in the system of Ryu, so that it would provide distributed communications using unused resources shared across multiple basic service sets relates to wireless communication (Vermani, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 13, Ryu in view of Vermani disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 11.
Vermani further discloses the control unit is configured to control reception processing of the grant frame having been sent back from the adjacent access point to be a reception destination of the data to be shared (Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0083]-[0084], [0098], master AP; slave AP; transmission identifying all STAs and number of streams being allocated to each STA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the control unit is configured to control reception processing of the grant frame having been sent back from the adjacent access point to be a reception destination of the data to be shared” as taught by Vermani, in the system of Ryu, so that it would provide distributed communications using unused resources shared across multiple basic service sets relates to wireless communication (Vermani, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 14, Ryu in view of Vermani disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 11.
Vermani further discloses the grant frame includes at least one of information related to the communication terminal, information related to the number of multiplexed transmissions when transmitting the data to be shared, and a communication parameter upon transmission of the data to be shared (Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0083]-[0084], [0098], various options to multiplex NDPs from different APs or STAs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the grant frame includes at least one of information related to the communication terminal, information related to the number of multiplexed transmissions when transmitting the data to be shared, and a communication parameter upon transmission of the data to be shared” as taught by Vermani, in the system of Ryu, so that it would provide distributed communications using unused resources shared across multiple basic service sets relates to wireless communication (Vermani, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu in view of Vermani disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 11.
Vermani further discloses the communicating unit is capable of transmitting and receiving a wireless signal in which a plurality of pieces of data are configured as a multiplexed stream, and the grant frame includes at least one of information related to the number of multiplexed transmissions when transmitting the data to be shared and a communication parameter upon transmission of the data to be shared (Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0083]-[0084], [0098], further, there may be various options to multiplex NDPs from different APs or STAs transmitted at the same time. For example, using frequency division multiplexing, each stream may be allocated different tones in each LTF symbol; in some cases, along with FDM, beam steering matrix (P-matrix) may be used to multiplex the streams of an AP, while different APs are allocated non-overlapping tones; as an alternative, all streams (from all APs) could be multiplexed using a large P-matrix. Using time division multiplexing, one stream may be allocated one LTF; this TDM approach could be combined with P-matrix multiplexing, for example, with one AP's streams multiplexed using P-matrix, while different APs are active on different LTF symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the communicating unit is capable of transmitting and receiving a wireless signal in which a plurality of pieces of data are configured as a multiplexed stream, and the grant frame includes at least one of information related to the number of multiplexed transmissions when transmitting the data to be shared and a communication parameter upon transmission of the data to be shared” as taught by Vermani, in the system of Ryu, so that it would provide distributed communications using unused resources shared across multiple basic service sets relates to wireless communication (Vermani, paragraph [0002]).
24. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU et al. (US 2021/0307099 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers. 62/722, 966 filed on August 26, 2018; 62/737, 874 filed on filed on September 27, 2018 and 62/790, 457 filed on January 9, 2019; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Ryu” in view of in view of YANG et al. (US 2016/0149671 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding claim 16, Ryu discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryu does not explicitly disclose “the control unit is configured to discard the data to be shared based on completion of reception of the data to be shared by the single communication terminal”.
However, Yang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the control unit is configured to discard the data to be shared based on completion of reception of the data to be shared by the single communication terminal (Fig. 3, S305, paragraph [0216], if the BA indicates that the data are correctly received by each receiving terminal, the primary sending terminal and the secondary sending terminal respectively clear the data cached in the primary sending terminal and the secondary sending terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the control unit is configured to discard the data to be shared based on completion of reception of the data to be shared by the single communication terminal” as taught by Yang, in the system of Ryu, so that it would support error recovery when multiple sending terminals and multiple receiving terminals transmit data simultaneously, so as to guarantee reliability of data transmission and improve throughput of system (Yang, paragraph [0006]).
25. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU et al. (US 2021/0307099 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers. 62/722, 966 filed on August 26, 2018; 62/737, 874 filed on filed on September 27, 2018 and 62/790, 457 filed on January 9, 2019; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Ryu” in view of in view of KIM et al. (US 2013/0265955 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated July 01, 2024), hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 17, Ryu discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose “the control unit is configured to control multiplexed transmission of data based on the number of multiplexed streams that can be received by the single communication terminal and the other communication terminal”.
However, Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the control unit is configured to control multiplexed transmission of data based on the number of multiplexed streams that can be received by the single communication terminal and the other communication terminal (paragraph [0013], maximum number of data streams capable of being multiplexed spatially is restricted by min(NTx, NMS X NRx) where NMS denotes the number of UEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the control unit is configured to control multiplexed transmission of data based on the number of multiplexed streams that can be received by the single communication terminal and the other communication terminal” as taught by Kim, in the system of Ryu, so that it would provide transmitting/receiving channels between a base station and a mobile terminal efficiently in a mobile communication supporting massive Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) transmission (Kim, paragraph [0003]).
Citations of Pertinent Prior Art
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• Patwardhan et al. (US 2019/0363764 A1) entitled: " Method For Changing Steering Matrix Corresponding To Multiple Input, Multiple Output Group To Transmit Access Point On Communication Channel, Involves Changing Matrix By Access Point Corresponding To Multiple Input, Multiple Output Group"
• ITO et al. (US 2014/0092816 A1) entitled: "Wireless Communication With Multiple Access Points"
• Takano (US 2015/0009845 A1) entitled: "Radio Communication Apparatus And Radio Communication Method, And Radio Communication System"
Conclusion
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SITHU KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights