DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted June 11, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-19 and 31-41 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on June 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. The following claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “means for receiving” (claim 41, line 2); “means for communicating” (claim 41, line 8). The Examiner has determined the corresponding structure for these limitations to be shown or described in Application’s specification at: figures 1 and/or 5, and/or comprised of structure(s) generally known in the art.
Drawings
6. Figure 2A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see, e.g., U.S. Publication Nos. 2023/0137826; note the respective drawing). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 15-19, 31-37, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0194659 A1 (hereinafter “Sevin”), in view of either WO Publication No. 2025/219123 A1 (hereinafter “Viger”) or U.S. Publication No. 2020/0245352 A1 (hereinafter “Seok”).
Regarding claims 1, 16, 40, and 41: Sevin teaches a first wireless access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
receive, from a second wireless AP, one or more first frames that indicate wireless medium coordination information associated with a transmission opportunity of a shared wireless medium obtained by the second wireless AP, the one or more first frames indicating an allocation of a portion of the transmission opportunity to the first wireless AP (see, e.g., figure 1, [0005] [0056], [0088]-[0093]; a coordinator AP obtains a TXOP and shares portions thereof using frames transmitted to coordinated Aps) and
communicate, in accordance with the wireless medium coordination information, one or more second frames with one or more wireless devices or one or more wireless APs via the portion of the transmission opportunity (see, e.g., figure 1, [0005], [0146]-[0153]; the coordinated AP communicates).
Sevin does not explicitly state the feature “wherein the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP are in an unassociated state with respect to each other.” However, this feature is taught by Viger (see, e.g., figure 1; p. 15, lines 31-37; p. 16, lines 1-25; note overlapping teaching with respect to TXOP sharing and communication, as well as unassociated AP signaling). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Viger, such as the inter-BSS signaling, within the system of Sevin, in order to promote efficiency of resource utilization.
Alternatively to Viger, the said feature is taught in Seok (see, e.g., figure 1, [0052]-[0056], [0064]; note inter-BSS signaling). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Seok, such as the inter-BSS signaling, within the system of Sevin, in order to promote efficiency of resource utilization.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 1 is applicable to the method, medium, and access point of claims 16, 40, and 41, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 31: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein: the one or more wireless APs comprise the second wireless AP, and the one or more second frames comprise a transmission opportunity return indication within a header of the one or more second frames, a body of the one or more second frames, or both, in accordance with the wireless medium coordination information (see, e.g., Sevin [0070]-[0076]; Viger p. 22, lines 22-39; and/or Seok [0066], [0072], [0074]; note signaling to coordinator AP). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 2 is applicable to the method of claim 31.
Regarding claims 3 and 32: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein the transmission opportunity return indication is within a field of a header of the one or more second frames (see, e.g., Viger p. 20, lines 25-29; note also the explanation set forth above regarding claim 2). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 3 is applicable to the method of claim 32.
Regarding claims 4 and 33: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein the one or more second frames indicate that a remainder of the transmission opportunity is being returned (see, e.g., Sevin [0085], [0093]; Viger p. 22, lines 22-39; and/or Seok [0043]-[0057], [0074]; note bandwidth and/or portion indication). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 4 is applicable to the method of claim 33.
Regarding claims 5 and 34: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein, to communicate the one or more second frames, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless AP to: transmit, to the second wireless AP, one or more of a clear to send indication, a block acknowledgment frame, a block acknowledgment request frame, or any combination thereof, to indicate a transmission opportunity return indication to indicate that a remainder of the transmission opportunity is being returned (see, e.g., Sevin [0085], [0093]; Viger p. 15, lines 5-12, p. 22, lines 22-39, p. 35, lines 26-39; and/or Seok [0059]-[0065]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 5 is applicable to the method of claim 34.
Regarding claims 6 and 35: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein the block acknowledgment frame, the block acknowledgment request frame, or both, include a special association identifier value in a per association identifier traffic identifier field, wherein the special association identifier value indicates the transmission opportunity return indication (see, e.g., Sevin [0129]-[0138]; Viger p. 21, lines 15-20). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 6 is applicable to the method of claim 35.
Regarding claims 7 and 36: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein the one or more second frames comprise a management frame or a control frame (see, e.g., Sevin [0183]; Viger p. 24, lines 27-31, p. 30, 1-15; and/or Seok [0011] and [0067]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 7 is applicable to the method of claim 36.
Regarding claims 8 and 37: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein the one or more second frames comprise the management frame, and wherein the management frame is a public action frame or an action frame (see, e.g., Seok [0066]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 8 is applicable to the method of claim 37.
Regarding claims 10 and 39: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to: receive, from the second wireless AP, one or more third frames that comprise feedback that indicates whether the one or more second frames were successfully received at the second wireless AP (see, e.g., Sevin [0098], [0123], [0138]-[0140]; Viger p. 15, lines 5-12, p. 35, 26-39). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 10.
The rationale set forth above regarding the access point of claim 10 is applicable to the method of claim 39.
Regarding claim 11: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein, to communicate the one or more second frames, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless AP to: transmit, to the second wireless AP, a frame indicating one or more subchannels of the portion of the transmission opportunity over which the first wireless AP communicated the one or more second frames (see, e.g., Sevin [0059], [0064], [0065]; Viger p. 15, lines 5-12; Seok [0052]-[0053]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claim 15: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP are in the unassociated state with respect to each other based at least in part on the first wireless AP failing to request to join a basic service set associated with the second wireless AP (see, e.g., Viger figure 1; Seok [0064]; note the explanation set forth above regarding claim 1). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein the wireless medium coordination information comprises an indication of a buffer status, a transmission opportunity parameter, an intention to not participate in response to receiving a polling frame, one or more APs that are disallowed from participating in the transmission opportunity, one or more spatial reuse candidate AP pairs, a coordinated beam forming request, a starting or stopping procedure for a second transmission opportunity associated with a third wireless AP, one or more network allocation vector protection settings, a dynamic bandwidth expansion indication, a coordinated target wake up time, or any combination thereof (see, e.g., Sevin [0056]-[0059], [0076], [0107]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches setting an address field of the one or more second frames to a special address for communicating coordination information between unassociated APs (see, e.g., Sevin figures 7-9, [0107]; Viger p. 20, lines 37-39, p. 21, lines 1-4). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19: Sevin modified by Viger or Seok further teaches wherein: the unassociated state comprises an unauthenticated state, and the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP are in the unassociated state based at least in part on failure to exchange one or more association frames, failure to exchange one or more reassociation frames, failure to establish a security key, or any combination thereof (see, e.g., Viger figure 1; Seok [0064]; note the explanation set forth above regarding claim 16). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 9, 12-14, and 38 are 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.
Relevant Art
13. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights