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 Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s submission overcomes prior claim objections to claim 12. Therefore, the corresponding objection is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanka et al. (US 11,197,164), hereinafter "Vanka", in view of Backes et al. (US 2022/0369193), hereinafter “Backes”, and further in view of Sundararajan et al. (US 2021/0282145), hereinafter “Sundararajan”, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2025/0287363), hereinafter “Lu”.
Regarding claims 1, 19, Vanka teaches:
An access point (AP) (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 3-6: FIGS. 9B and 9C depict block diagrams of a computing device 900 useful for practicing an embodiment of the wireless communication devices 902 or the access point 906) or a method for wireless communications at an access point (AP) (see Vanka, col. 13, lines 59-60: FIG. 8B is a flow chart illustrating an implementation of determination of MCAT parameters), comprising:
a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein) to:
transmit information (see Vanka, Fig. 3A, col. 9, lines 24-44: The LCAT handshake packets may have the following format, in some implementations, as shown in FIG. 3A: the LCAT initiator may send its LCAT request in a generic control frame type where the duration field may contain the proposed channel use time from the LCAT handshake initiator; the TA field may contain the initiator's MAC address; the RA field may contain the responder's MAC address; and the information provided in the content field may include the initiator's LCAT table. The LCAT responder may send its LCAT response in a generic control frame type where the duration field may contain the proposed channel use time from the LCAT handshake responder (e.g. the duration may correspond to the amount of time for which the LCAT information is valid, or the duration in the response might be less than the duration in the initiating frame); the RA field may contain the initiator's MAC address; the TA field may contain the responder's MAC address (though this may be omitted to reduce overhead, since the initiator is awaiting an LCAT request directed to the responder); and the information provided in the content field may include the responder's LCAT table) associated with dynamic sub-band operation (DSO) (see Vanka, col. 6, lines 35-46: Devices may provide this improved protocol via the exchange of local channel availability tables (LCATs) that specify a set of frequency subbands or channels on which each device can receive and/or transmit, and for what time periods. The tables may be exchanged during handshaking or other inter-device communications such as when establishing communications. For example, when establishing a flexible channel utilization (FCU) session, a device may receive an LCAT from another device, and compare the received LCAT to its own LCAT to identify channels or subbands that match (e.g. are both available during the same transmission period)) between the AP and one or more stations (STAs) associated with the AP (see Vanka, Fig. 9A, col. 15, lines 25-27: An access point 906 can provide multiple devices 902 access to a network), wherein the information indicates:
a recommendation for one or more DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands supported by the AP (see Vanka, Fig. 3A, col. 9, lines 32-44: The LCAT responder may send its LCAT response in a generic control frame type where the duration field may contain the proposed channel use time from the LCAT handshake responder (e.g. the duration may correspond to the amount of time for which the LCAT information is valid, or the duration in the response might be less than the duration in the initiating frame); the RA field may contain the initiator's MAC address; the TA field may contain the responder's MAC address (though this may be omitted to reduce overhead, since the initiator is awaiting an LCAT request directed to the responder); and the information provided in the content field may include the responder's LCAT table, and see Fig. 8B, col. 14, lines 1-11: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update. The first device may also generate or retrieve a local LCAT of the first device (e.g. from a cache). At step 852, the first device may select a first subband of a plurality of subbands identified in the LCAT. At step 854, the first device may determine if the local LCAT and the remote LCAT include identifiers for the first subband indicating that the subband is preferred for each device; in this case, handshake packets are exchanged, and the handshake packets include address information which indicates which STA is associated with the LCAT table (i.e. each DSO sub-band of a plurality of DSO sub-bands). Based on the LCAT table (i.e. information) received, preferred subbands are identified (i.e. the information indicates a recommendation of subbands));
However, Vanka does not teach:
wherein the information indicates: for each DSO sub-band of a plurality of DSO sub-bands supported by the AP, a respective quantity of STAs that have selected that DSO sub-band, a respective quantity of STAs that have selected that DSO sub-band and that are actively communicating with the AP, or a respective running average quantity of active STAs on that DSO sub-band,
receive, from a first STA, an indication of one or more selected DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands in accordance with the information;
transmit, to the first STA, a DSO initial control frame (ICF) that indicates an assignment of at least one DSO sub-band of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands to the first STA in accordance with the indication of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands from the first STA; and
communicate with the first STA via the at least one DSO sub-band of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands in accordance with the assignment of the at least one DSO sub-band to the first STA.
Backes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the information indicates: for each DSO sub-band of a plurality of DSO sub-bands supported by the AP, a respective quantity of STAs that have selected that DSO sub-band, a respective quantity of STAs that have selected that DSO sub-band and that are actively communicating with the AP, or a respective running average quantity of active STAs on that DSO sub-band (see Backes, Fig. 26, pars. [0204-0214]: The STA 16 receives beacons and DRCP Announce messages from all APs 12 within the range of its radio. These are processed to build a table of all known APs 12, the “STA knownAPs” table 430, as shown in FIG. 26. The STA knownAPs table includes the following parameters for each entry: AP-ID, age, Channel ID, Load factor, TP Backoff, Max Power, Distance samples, Distance, My_load_factor, Biased_distance; in this case, load factors for channels of APs correspond to a respective quantity of STAs that have selected that sub-band and are actively communicating or a quantity of active STAs),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the information of Vanka with the respective quantity of STAs of Backes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of optimizing performance and minimizing interference (see Backes, par. [0068]).
However, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes does not teach:
receive, from a first STA, an indication of one or more selected DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands in accordance with the information;
transmit, to the first STA, a DSO initial control frame (ICF) that indicates an assignment of at least one DSO sub-band of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands to the first STA in accordance with the indication of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands from the first STA; and
communicate with the first STA via the at least one DSO sub-band of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands in accordance with the assignment of the at least one DSO sub-band to the first STA.
Sundararajan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
receive, from a first STA, an indication of one or more selected DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands in accordance with the information (see Sundararajan, Fig. 4, par. [0096]: At action 414, the UE 404 may determine recommended transmission parameters—for example, rank, MCS, sets of resource blocks, and/or sets of component carriers—for use by the BS 402 when transmitting the message. Based on the reference signal (e.g., on the results of channel estimation), the resource allocation mode, and the traffic parameters, the UE 404 may select (which may include, for example, calculations or other types of determination) transmission parameters that satisfy the objective corresponding to the resource allocation mode and the constraints imposed by the traffic parameters, and see par. [0098]: At action 416, the UE 404 may transmit the recommended transmission parameters to the BS 402. The recommended transmission parameters may be included, for example, in a channel state feedback report on the PUSCH or PUCCH; in this case, based on at least traffic parameters and resource allocation mode (i.e. in accordance with the information), selected sets of component carriers (i.e. selected sub-bands) are sent from the UE (i.e. STA) to the BS (i.e. AP));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the AP or method of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes with the receiving an indication of selected sub-bands of Sundararajan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing efficiency and reducing interference (see Sundararajan, par. [0028]).
However, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, does not teach:
transmit, to the first STA, a DSO initial control frame (ICF) that indicates an assignment of at least one DSO sub-band of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands to the first STA in accordance with the indication of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands from the first STA; and
communicate with the first STA via the at least one DSO sub-band of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands in accordance with the assignment of the at least one DSO sub-band to the first STA.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
transmit, to the first STA, a DSO initial control frame (ICF) that indicates an assignment of at least one DSO sub-band of one or more selected DSO sub-bands to the first STA (see Lu, Fig. 8, par. [0044]: At 810, process 800 may involve processor 712 of apparatus 710, as a STA, receiving, via transceiver 716, an ICF from an AP (e.g., apparatus 720). Wherein the ICF allocates dynamic subchannel/subband operation (DSO) subband resources to DSO STAs for transmitting ICF response frames); and
communicate with the first STA via the at least one DSO sub-band of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands in accordance with the assignment of the at least one DSO sub-band to the first STA (see Lu, pars. [0082-0084]: the ICF response frame carries a control field that indicates an availability of one or more 20 MHz channels or a portion of a 20 MHz channel within an allocated DSO subband allocated to the STA and/or a buffer status of the STA. In some implementations, the size of the one or more RUs on which the ICF response frame is transmitted may be smaller than or equal to a maximum allocated resources for a subsequent data transmission between the STA and the AP. In some implementations, the ICF response frame includes a channel availability information and/or a buffer status information to indicate the AP to allocate resources to the STA in subsequent data frame exchange(s) based on the channel availability information and/or a buffer status information).
Sundararajan further teaches the claimed assignment of at least one DSO sub-band of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands to the first STA in accordance with the indication of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands from the first STA for communication (see Sundararajan, Fig. 4, par. [0099]: At action 418, the BS 402 may consider the transmission parameters recommended by the UE 404. The BS 402 may accept the recommended transmission parameters or reject them, and see par. [0100]: At action 420, the BS 402 may transmit the message to the UE 404. The BS 402 may transmit the message using the transmission parameters recommended by the UE 404 at actions 414 and 416, or it may use a different set of transmission parameters determined by the BS at action 418).
Therefore, since Lu teaches transmitting an ICF indicating an assignment of a DSO sub-band, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have indicate an assignment in accordance with previously selected DSO sub-bands from the first STA with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving spectral efficiency and enhancing system performance (see Lu, par. [0025]).
Regarding claims 2, 20, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP or method. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the information indicates which of the one or more STAs have transmitted DSO sub-band selection indications (see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-12: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update. The first device may also generate or retrieve a local LCAT of the first device (e.g. from a cache). At step 852, the first device may select a first subband of a plurality of subbands identified in the LCAT. At step 854, the first device may determine if the local LCAT and the remote LCAT include identifiers for the first subband indicating that the subband is preferred for each device. If so, the subband may be added to the MCAT at step 856, and see Vanka, col. 7, lines 59-64: The LCATs/MCAT may be dynamically updated in response to changing channel conditions via exchange of LCATs during management or control frames. In some implementations, upon determining a change in channel conditions, one device may transmit its (newly updated) LCAT to the other device; in this case, the LCAT information may be communicated as part of an update to another device (corresponding to an indication that the STA has transmitted selected sub-bands)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein, to transmit the information, the processing system is further configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein) to:
transmit the information via a unicast transmission in response to reception of a query from the first STA (see Vanka, col. 9, lines 24-33: The LCAT handshake packets may have the following format, in some implementations, as shown in FIG. 3A: the LCAT initiator may send its LCAT request in a generic control frame type where the duration field may contain the proposed channel use time from the LCAT handshake initiator; the TA field may contain the initiator's MAC address; the RA field may contain the responder's MAC address; and the information provided in the content field may include the initiator's LCAT table. The LCAT responder may send its LCAT response, and see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-4: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update; in this case, the LCAT information may be transmitted in response to an LCAT request (i.e. query) to the initiator (corresponding to a unicast transmission));
transmit the information via a broadcast transmission (optional limitation); or both (optional limitation).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein, to transmit the information, the processing system is further configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein) to indicate one or more DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands as disfavored or disallowed for selection (see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-20: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update. The first device may also generate or retrieve a local LCAT of the first device (e.g. from a cache). At step 852, the first device may select a first subband of a plurality of subbands identified in the LCAT. At step 854, the first device may determine if the local LCAT and the remote LCAT include identifiers for the first subband indicating that the subband is preferred for each device. If so, the subband may be added to the MCAT at step 856. In some implementations, this may be done in series for each subband, repeating at step 858 as shown. In other implementations, a string of the local LCAT for preferred channels may be compared against a corresponding string of the remote LCAT via a bitwise AND (e.g. a string of preferred transmission channels of the first device compared on a bit for bit basis to a string indicating preferred reception channels of the second device, and vice versa); in this case, the LCAT table indicates preferred sub-bands. As part of the comparison for making a selection, sub-bands may be preferred or not preferred (corresponding to disfavored)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the one or more DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands are indicated as disfavored or disallowed based at least in part on one or more traffic profiles associated with the plurality of DSO sub-bands (see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-20: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update. The first device may also generate or retrieve a local LCAT of the first device (e.g. from a cache). At step 852, the first device may select a first subband of a plurality of subbands identified in the LCAT. At step 854, the first device may determine if the local LCAT and the remote LCAT include identifiers for the first subband indicating that the subband is preferred for each device. If so, the subband may be added to the MCAT at step 856. In some implementations, this may be done in series for each subband, repeating at step 858 as shown. In other implementations, a string of the local LCAT for preferred channels may be compared against a corresponding string of the remote LCAT via a bitwise AND (e.g. a string of preferred transmission channels of the first device compared on a bit for bit basis to a string indicating preferred reception channels of the second device, and vice versa); in this case, the LCAT table which identifies preferred sub-bands corresponds to a traffic profile).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the recommendation is based at least in part on one or more traffic profiles associated with the plurality of DSO sub-bands, a prioritization of the one or more DSO sub-bands, or any combination thereof (see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-20: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update. The first device may also generate or retrieve a local LCAT of the first device (e.g. from a cache). At step 852, the first device may select a first subband of a plurality of subbands identified in the LCAT. At step 854, the first device may determine if the local LCAT and the remote LCAT include identifiers for the first subband indicating that the subband is preferred for each device. If so, the subband may be added to the MCAT at step 856. In some implementations, this may be done in series for each subband, repeating at step 858 as shown. In other implementations, a string of the local LCAT for preferred channels may be compared against a corresponding string of the remote LCAT via a bitwise AND (e.g. a string of preferred transmission channels of the first device compared on a bit for bit basis to a string indicating preferred reception channels of the second device, and vice versa); in this case, the LCAT information of preferred sub-bands corresponds to a prioritization and is used for making a selection of sub-bands corresponds to a recommendation and includes an LCAT table which corresponds to a traffic profile).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein) to transmit critical update signaling based at least in part on an update to the information (see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-4: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update, and see Vanka, col. 7, lines 59-66: The LCATs/MCAT may be dynamically updated in response to changing channel conditions via exchange of LCATs during management or control frames. In some implementations, upon determining a change in channel conditions, one device may transmit its (newly updated) LCAT to the other device, and the other device may respond with its own (updated or not) LCAT so the devices may individually determine MCAT channels and times; in this case, LCAT updates may be performed (corresponding to transmitting critical update signaling) in response to changing channel conditions (corresponding to based on an update to the information)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein, to transmit the information, the processing system is further configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein) to transmit the information in a dedicated information element or in an operations information element (see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-20: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update. The first device may also generate or retrieve a local LCAT of the first device (e.g. from a cache). At step 852, the first device may select a first subband of a plurality of subbands identified in the LCAT. At step 854, the first device may determine if the local LCAT and the remote LCAT include identifiers for the first subband indicating that the subband is preferred for each device. If so, the subband may be added to the MCAT at step 856. In some implementations, this may be done in series for each subband, repeating at step 858 as shown. In other implementations, a string of the local LCAT for preferred channels may be compared against a corresponding string of the remote LCAT via a bitwise AND (e.g. a string of preferred transmission channels of the first device compared on a bit for bit basis to a string indicating preferred reception channels of the second device, and vice versa); in this case, the information is transmitted from one device to another (corresponding to in a dedicated information element)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein) to receive, from the first STA, a request to provide the information, wherein transmission of the information is based at least in part on reception of the request (see Vanka, col. 9, lines 24-33: The LCAT handshake packets may have the following format, in some implementations, as shown in FIG. 3A: the LCAT initiator may send its LCAT request in a generic control frame type where the duration field may contain the proposed channel use time from the LCAT handshake initiator; the TA field may contain the initiator's MAC address; the RA field may contain the responder's MAC address; and the information provided in the content field may include the initiator's LCAT table. The LCAT responder may send its LCAT response, and see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-4: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update; in this case, the LCAT information may be transmitted in response to an LCAT request to the initiator (corresponding to a unicast transmission)).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein:
the request includes a selection of individual sub-band basis reporting or sub-band group basis reporting (see Vanka, col. 9, lines 24-33: The LCAT handshake packets may have the following format, in some implementations, as shown in FIG. 3A: the LCAT initiator may send its LCAT request in a generic control frame type where the duration field may contain the proposed channel use time from the LCAT handshake initiator; the TA field may contain the initiator's MAC address; the RA field may contain the responder's MAC address; and the information provided in the content field may include the initiator's LCAT table, and see Vanka, col. 6, lines 35-40: Devices may provide this improved protocol via the exchange of local channel availability tables (LCATs) that specify a set of frequency subbands or channels on which each device can receive and/or transmit, and for what time periods. The tables may be exchanged during handshaking or other inter-device communications such as when establishing communications; in this case, the LCAT request includes its LCAT table which reports preferred sub-bands (corresponding to a selection of individual sub-band basis reporting)); and
the information is transmitted in accordance with the selection (see Vanka, col. 9, lines 32-46: The LCAT responder may send its LCAT response in a generic control frame type where the duration field may contain the proposed channel use time from the LCAT handshake responder (e.g. the duration may correspond to the amount of time for which the LCAT information is valid, or the duration in the response might be less than the duration in the initiating frame); the RA field may contain the initiator's MAC address; the TA field may contain the responder's MAC address (though this may be omitted to reduce overhead, since the initiator is awaiting an LCAT request directed to the responder); and the information provided in the content field may include the responder's LCAT table. The tables may include preferred channels (W), durations (T), and MCS schemes, as discussed above in connection with FIG. 2A and the protocol description; in this case, the responder’s LCAT table is transmitted in response to the request).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the information indicates one or more quantities of the STAs associated with each DSO sub-band on an individual DSO sub-band basis, on a DSO sub-band group basis, or both (see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-12: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update. The first device may also generate or retrieve a local LCAT of the first device (e.g. from a cache). At step 852, the first device may select a first subband of a plurality of subbands identified in the LCAT. At step 854, the first device may determine if the local LCAT and the remote LCAT include identifiers for the first subband indicating that the subband is preferred for each device. If so, the subband may be added to the MCAT at step 856, and see Vanka, col. 6, lines 35-40: Devices may provide this improved protocol via the exchange of local channel availability tables (LCATs) that specify a set of frequency subbands or channels on which each device can receive and/or transmit, and for what time periods. The tables may be exchanged during handshaking or other inter-device communications such as when establishing communications; in this case, LCATs may be sent which include time periods for sub-bands (corresponding to quantities)).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, as applied to claims 1-2, 7, and 11-20 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2018/0332498), hereinafter “Zhou”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the information indicates which of the one or more STAs have transmitted DSO sub-band selection indications (see Vanka, col. 14, lines 1-12: At step 850, a first device may receive a remote LCAT table from a second device. As discussed above, this may be done during handshaking, or during an update, such as via a management or control update. The first device may also generate or retrieve a local LCAT of the first device (e.g. from a cache). At step 852, the first device may select a first subband of a plurality of subbands identified in the LCAT. At step 854, the first device may determine if the local LCAT and the remote LCAT include identifiers for the first subband indicating that the subband is preferred for each device. If so, the subband may be added to the MCAT at step 856, and see Vanka, col. 7, lines 59-64: The LCATs/MCAT may be dynamically updated in response to changing channel conditions via exchange of LCATs during management or control frames. In some implementations, upon determining a change in channel conditions, one device may transmit its (newly updated) LCAT to the other device; in this case, the LCAT information may be communicated as part of an update to another device (corresponding to an indication that the STA has transmitted selected sub-bands))
However, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, does not teach:
and that have communicated with the AP within a threshold first amount of time.
Zhou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
and that have communicated with the AP within a threshold first amount of time (see Zhou, par. [0112], lines 1-7: the configuration may further include a desired time for obtaining the report. In another aspect, the desired time includes a time within a threshold after the configuration is output for transmission. In another aspect, the desired time includes a time during a transmission opportunity (TXOP) initiated by a sender of the report after the configuration is output for transmission; in this case, the desired time corresponds to a threshold first amount of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the information of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, with the information being of STAs communicating within a threshold amount of time of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing efficient access of the wireless medium while avoiding collisions (see Zhou, par. [0095], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, and further in view of Zhou, teaches the AP.
Vanka does not teach, but Backes teaches:
wherein:
the information indicates the respective running average quantity of active STAs for each DSO sub-band, the respective running average quantity of active STAs for each DSO sub-band comprising a respective set of STAs (see Backes, Fig. 26, pars. [0204-0214]: The STA 16 receives beacons and DRCP Announce messages from all APs 12 within the range of its radio. These are processed to build a table of all known APs 12, the “STA knownAPs” table 430, as shown in FIG. 26. The STA knownAPs table includes the following parameters for each entry: AP-ID, age, Channel ID, Load factor, TP Backoff, Max Power, Distance samples, Distance, My_load_factor, Biased_distance; in this case, load factors for channels of APs correspond to a respective quantity of STAs that have selected that sub-band and are actively communicating or a quantity of active STAs); and
the respective running average quantity of active STAs for each DSO sub-band is indicated with respect to the threshold first amount of time or with respect to a second amount of time different than the threshold first amount of time (see Backes, par. [0228]: the STA keeps an Age for each entry. The Age is reset to zero, “0”, each time an Announce message is received from the AP corresponding to the entry. Entries are aged as part of the STA Bidding process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the information of Vanka with the respective quantity of STAs of Backes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of optimizing performance and minimizing interference (see Backes, par. [0068]).
The combination of Vanka in view of Backes does not teach, but Sundararajan teaches:
the respective running average quantity of active STAs comprising a respective set of STAs that have transmitted DSO sub-band selection indications (see Sundararajan, Fig. 4, par. [0096]: At action 414, the UE 404 may determine recommended transmission parameters—for example, rank, MCS, sets of resource blocks, and/or sets of component carriers—for use by the BS 402 when transmitting the message. Based on the reference signal (e.g., on the results of channel estimation), the resource allocation mode, and the traffic parameters, the UE 404 may select (which may include, for example, calculations or other types of determination) transmission parameters that satisfy the objective corresponding to the resource allocation mode and the constraints imposed by the traffic parameters, and see par. [0098]: At action 416, the UE 404 may transmit the recommended transmission parameters to the BS 402. The recommended transmission parameters may be included, for example, in a channel state feedback report on the PUSCH or PUCCH; in this case, based on at least traffic parameters and resource allocation mode (i.e. in accordance with the information), selected sets of component carriers (i.e. selected sub-bands) are sent from the UE (i.e. STA) to the BS (i.e. AP))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the AP or method of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes with the receiving an indication of selected sub-bands of Sundararajan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing efficiency and reducing interference (see Sundararajan, par. [0028]).
The combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, does not teach, but Zhou teaches:
a respective set of STAs that have communicated within the threshold first amount of time (see Zhou, par. [0112], lines 1-7: the configuration may further include a desired time for obtaining the report. In another aspect, the desired time includes a time within a threshold after the configuration is output for transmission. In another aspect, the desired time includes a time during a transmission opportunity (TXOP) initiated by a sender of the report after the configuration is output for transmission; in this case, the desired time corresponds to a threshold first amount of time);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the information of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, with the information being of STAs communicating within a threshold amount of time of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing efficient access of the wireless medium while avoiding collisions (see Zhou, par. [0095], lines 1-4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, as applied to claims 1-2, 7, and 11-20 above, and further in view of Åström et al. (US 2019/0141587), hereinafter “Åström”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein)
However, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, does not teach:
to increment one or more counters associated with the one or more selected DSO sub-bands based at least in part on reception of the indication of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands.
Åström, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
to increment one or more counters associated with the one or more selected DSO sub-bands based at least in part on reception of the indication of the one or more selected DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands (see Åström, par. [0037], lines 12-14: As each sub-band signal is received and stored, the radio network device may increment the counter i).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, with the incrementing a counter when a sub-band indication is received of Åström with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a methodology for narrowband radio network devices to access wireless communication networks (see Åström, par. [0055]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, as applied to claims 1-2, 7, and 11-20 above, and further in view of Viger et al. (WO 2024/213545), hereinafter “Viger”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein)
However, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, does not teach:
to decrement one or more counters associated with individual DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands based at least in part on a determination that a STA of the one or more STAs is no longer operating in a DSO mode.
Viger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
to decrement one or more counters associated with individual DSO sub-bands of the plurality of DSO sub-bands based at least in part on a determination that a STA of the one or more STAs is no longer operating in a DSO mode (see Viger, page 5, lines 27-33: The second AP thus forces its stations to statistically wait for a longer time than in a conventional operating mode. This results in less medium access attempts by its stations, hence in less OBSS interference with the first BSS. In other embodiments, the OBSS EDCA Parameter Set includes a degraded AIFSN value. The second AP thus drives its stations to wait for a longer time before starting decrementing their backoff counter to gain access to the medium, and see Viger, page 5, lines 22-24: the OBSS TWT element includes an OBSS EDCA Parameter Set, different from a legacy EDCA Parameter Set, to be applied by the stations of the second BSS to contend for access to the medium during the second TWT SPs, and see Viger, page 4, lines 23-24: a transmitter configured to send, responsive to the reception of the MAP coordination frame, to stations of the second BSS, a frame including an overlapping BSS (OBSS) TWT element, and see Viger, page 20, lines 29-30: MAP sharing of the common communication channel is resource-based. An amount of a shared resource can be measured in time units, frequency band width; in this case, the AP drives stations to decrement a counter based on a resource-based MAP. This may be done based on a non-conventional operating mode (corresponding to no longer operating in a DSO mode)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, with the decrementing a counter of Viger with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of less OBSS interference with BSS (see Viger, page 5, lines 33-35)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, as applied to claims 1-2, 7, and 11-20 above, and further in view of Hedayat (US 2016/0150505), hereinafter “Hedayat”.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP.
However, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, does not teach:
wherein:
transmission of the information via the unicast transmission in response to reception of the query from the first STA comprises transmission of the information on a per-sub-band basis; and
transmission of the information via the broadcast transmission comprises transmission of the information on a per-sub-band group-basis.
Hedayat, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein:
transmitting the information via the unicast transmission in response to reception of the query from the first STA comprises transmitting the information on a per-sub-band basis (see Hedayat, par. [0097], lines 12-18: The unicast PSDU(s), typically located in the sub-band region of a PPDU (e.g., in the payload 509), are destined to a STA that is associated with the AP. The presence and length of a PSDU in a sub-band or a set of sub-bands and the STA that is a recipient of the unicast PSDU are indicated in the HE SIG-A field and/or the HE SIG-B field; in this case, a unicast transmission is performed for sub-bands in a set of sub-bands (i.e. on a per-sub-band basis)); and
transmitting the information via the broadcast transmission comprises transmitting the information on a per-sub-band group-basis (see Hedayat, Fig. 4B, par. [0071], lines 1-16: the indication of the RU can be in a short format, such indication may be provided in one of the 802.11ax SIG symbols (e.g., 402) of the DL OFDMA PPDU 420 of FIG. 4B. The 802.11ax SIG symbols can include fields for DL MAP, and fields for MCS of broadcast/multicast MPDUs. In one implementation, it would suffice to indicate the RU index or indices in addition to PAID of the STA. In another implementation, the AP may announce the identification of the STAs by using group identifications (GIDs). In such group identifications, an order for the STAs may be a priori assumed. For instance, assume a first group identification, G1, is a priori known to be the group identification for STAx, STAy, STAz, and STAw in the same order. Hence, it may suffice for the AP to announce (a) how many RUs are assigned to each STA in the same order as in the list of STAs, and then (b) announce RU indices in order for these STAs; in this case, broadcast transmissions of sub-bands are performed to groups of STAs (corresponding to on a per-sub-band group-basis)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the unicast or broadcast transmission of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, with the per-sub-band or per-sub-band group basis of Hedayat with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enhancing the aggregation of multiple packets for multiple stations (see Hedayat, par. [0018]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP.
However, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, does not teach:
wherein:
the information is indicated on a sub-band group basis; and
the information comprises one or more indications of greatest quantities of STAs associated with individual DSO sub-bands of each sub-band group or average quantities of STAs associated with individual DSO sub-bands of each sub-band group.
Hedayat, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein:
the information is indicated on a sub-band group basis (see Hedayat, Fig. 4B, par. [0071], lines 1-16: the indication of the RU can be in a short format, such indication may be provided in one of the 802.11ax SIG symbols (e.g., 402) of the DL OFDMA PPDU 420 of FIG. 4B. The 802.11ax SIG symbols can include fields for DL MAP, and fields for MCS of broadcast/multicast MPDUs. In one implementation, it would suffice to indicate the RU index or indices in addition to PAID of the STA. In another implementation, the AP may announce the identification of the STAs by using group identifications (GIDs). In such group identifications, an order for the STAs may be a priori assumed. For instance, assume a first group identification, G1, is a priori known to be the group identification for STAx, STAy, STAz, and STAw in the same order. Hence, it may suffice for the AP to announce (a) how many RUs are assigned to each STA in the same order as in the list of STAs, and then (b) announce RU indices in order for these STAs; in this case, information of sub-bands are is sent to groups of STAs (corresponding to indicated on a per-sub-band group-basis)); and
the information comprises one or more indications of greatest quantities of STAs associated with individual DSO sub-bands of each sub-band group or average quantities of STAs associated with individual DSO sub-bands of each sub-band group (see Hedayat, par. [0071], lines 13-21: it may suffice for the AP to announce (a) how many RUs are assigned to each STA in the same order as in the list of STAs, and then (b) announce RU indices in order for these STAs. For instance, assume that the total available RU is 8 (e.g., RUs with 5 MHz bandwidth in a 40 MHz PPDU) identified by RU1, RU2, . . . , RU8 (three bits for each, and total of 24 bits). Then assume that the AP wants to send a DL OFDMA PPDU to STAx, STAz, and STAw (and nothing for STAy); in this case, information of sub-bands are is sent to groups of STAs (corresponding to indicated on a per-sub-band group-basis). The information indicates the STAs associated with sub-bands (corresponding to greatest quantities of STAs associated with sub-bands)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the information of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, with the information indicated on a sub-band group basis of Hedayat with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enhancing the aggregation of multiple packets for multiple stations (see Hedayat, par. [0018]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, as applied to claims 1-2, 7, and 11-20 above, and further in view of Jauh et al. (US 2016/0128102), hereinafter “Jauh”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, teaches the AP. Vanka further teaches:
wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the AP (see Vanka, Figs. 9B and 9C, col. 16, lines 6-8: each computing device 900 includes a central processing unit 921, and a main memory unit 922, and see Vanka, col. 18, line 66-col. 19, line 5: the computing device 900 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, any other computer, or other form of computing or telecommunications device that is capable of communication and that has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein)
However, the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, does not teach:
to transmit an indication of a multiplier value to be applied to STA quantity values indicated in the information that are associated with each DSO sub-band of the plurality of DSO sub-bands.
Jauh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
to transmit an indication of a multiplier value to be applied to STA quantity values indicated in the information that are associated with each DSO sub-band of the plurality of DSO sub-bands (see Jauh, Fig. 4, par. [0030], lines 11-23: the AP transmits another trigger frame 403. This trigger frame specifies that three resource units 421, 423, and 424 allocated for random access for the next OFDMA transmission, and the duration and timing of the OFDMA packets. Upon receiving the trigger frame 403, the STA compares the updated value n1=2 with the number of allocated resource units, which is three (n2=3) multiplied by a weighting factor (e.g., weighting factor w=1). Because the updated random number n1=2 is smaller than the number of resource units n2*w=3, the STA is now allowed to contend for the share wireless channel. As a result, the STA transmits an uplink OFDMA packet 441 to the AP using a selected sub-band (e.g., resource unit RU 423 is selected); in this case, the weighting factor corresponds to a multiplier value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the combination of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu, with the transmission of a multiplier of Jauh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving efficiency of WLAN networks allowing multiple users to share the same wideband WLAN channel (see Jauh, pars. [0006-0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant's remarks, pages 8-12, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 19 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vanka in view of Backes, and further in view of Sundararajan, and further in view of Lu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (US 2017/0367095) teaches a subchannel relocation for fixed-bandwidth devices.
Liu et al. (US 2017/0019800) teaches techniques and apparatus that may help improve greatly reduce the implementation complexity of the ground station, and ground base-station user capacity by utilizing a subband beamformer for processing uplink signals received from aircraft at ground base stations, in an air-to-ground (ATG) system.
Zakrzewska et al. (US 2020/0389798) teaches a solution for performing channel selection for a wireless network including using channel utilization factors.
Lee (WO 2025/018818) teaches a method for switching a subchannel in a wireless local area network using a switching indication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB J BALLOWE whose telephone number is (571)270-0410. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 7:30-5.
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, Nishant B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/C.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419