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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ajami (US 2023/0156793).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Ajami teaches a non-access point (AP) station (STA) in a wireless network (figure 4, see specifically STA 1 and/or Peer STA), the non-AP STA comprising:
at least one processor including processing circuitry (figure 3, see specifically memory); and
memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the non-AP STA to (figure 3, see specifically processor):
obtain a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for transmission of a frame on a link (¶ [0049], see specifically sharing trigger message);
allocate a portion of the TXOP to a STA; (¶ [0050], see specifically trigger frame). and
transmit a notification to the STA indicating allocation of the portion of the TXOP to the STA (¶ [0050], see specifically trigger frame).
Regarding Claim 2, Ajami teaches the notification is a trigger frame (¶ [0050], see specifically trigger frame).
Regarding Claim 3, Ajami teaches the STA is another non-AP STA or an AP (¶ [0050], see specifically peer STA).
Regarding Claim 4, Ajami teaches the non-AP STA and the STA are connected over a Tunneled Direct Link Setup (TDLS) direct link or a peer-to-peer (P2P) link (¶ [0050], see specifically peer STA).
Regarding Claim 5, Ajami teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the non-AP STA to allocate another portion of the TXOP to another STA (¶ 0071], see specifically one or more other devices, and the discussion of the AP getting the remainder)
Regarding Claim 7, Ajami teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the non-AP STA to: receive a response to the notification from the STA; receive a frame during the portion of the TXOP from the STA; and transmit an acknowledgement to the STA in response to the frame (¶ [0048] – [0051], figure 4, see specifically the process of transmitting data between STA1 and Peer STA including the acknowledgements.)
Regarding Claim 8, Ajami teaches a first access point (AP) (figure 4, see specifically AP), the in a wireless network, the first AP comprising:
at least one processor including processing circuitry (figure 3, see specifically processor); and
memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (figure 3, see specifically memory), cause the AP to:
obtain a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for transmission of a frame on a link; allocate a portion of the TXOP to a second AP (¶ [0045], see specifically TXOP)
and transmit a notification to the second AP indicating allocation of the portion of the TXOP to the second AP (¶ [0049], see specifically sharing trigger message);
Regarding Claim 9, Ajami instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the AP to allocate another portion of the TXOP to a non-AP station (STA) (¶ [0050], see specifically trigger frame).
Regarding Claim 10, Ajami teaches the notification is a trigger frame (¶ [0050], see specifically trigger frame).
Regarding Claim 12, Ajami teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the STA to transmit frames to a fourth STA that is associated with the first STA through a remaining portion of the TXOP (¶ 0071], see specifically one or more other devices, and the discussion of the AP getting the remainder)
Regarding Claim 13, Ajami teaches the first STA is an access point (AP) or non-AP STA (figure 4, see specifically STA 1 and/or Peer STA),
Regarding Claim 14, Ajami teaches the second STA is an access point (AP) or a non-AP STA (figure 4, see specifically STA 1 and/or Peer STA),
Regarding Claim 18, Ajami teaches the notification is a trigger frame (figure 4, see specifically STA 1 and/or Peer STA).
Regarding Claim 19, Ajami teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the STA to receive a response to the notification from the third STA; receive a frame during the second portion of the TXOP from the third STA; and transmit an acknowledgement to the third STA in response to the frame (¶ [0048] – [0051], figure 4, see specifically the process of transmitting data between STA1 and Peer STA including the acknowledgements.)
Regarding Claim 20, Ajami teaches the first STA and the third STA are connected over a Tunneled Direct Link Setup (TDLS) direct link or a peer-to-peer (P2P) link (¶ [0050], see specifically peer STA).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami (US 2023/0156793) in view of Ajami (US 2024/0292456).
Examiner’s Note: For purposes of examination, the Ajami reference will be referred to by the second named inventor Patil.
Regarding Claim 6, Ajami fails to explicitly teach the STA is a controller of a peer-to-peer (P2P) group.
Patil from the same or similar field of endeavor the STA is a controller of a peer-to-peer (P2P) group (¶ [0060], see specifically group owner).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to organize dependent nodes into peer groups and allow them to communicate directly in the invention of Ajami as taught by Patil.
The motivation is that having the peer device act as a group owner in a peer to peer group assigning the TXOP to its peer nodes allows the nodes to bypass the AP which reduces overhead as the AP would otherwise need to repeat the transmission.
Regarding Claim 15, Ajami fails to explicitly teach the first STA and the third STA are in a peer-to-peer (P2P) group.
Patil from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the first STA and the third STA are in a peer-to-peer (P2P) group (¶ [0060], see specifically group owner).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to organize dependent nodes into peer groups and allow them to communicate directly in the invention of Ajami as taught by Patil.
The motivation is that having the peer device act as a group owner in a peer to peer group assigning the TXOP to its peer nodes allows the nodes to bypass the AP which reduces overhead as the AP would otherwise need to repeat the transmission.
Regarding Claim 16, Ajami fails to explicitly teach the first STA is a controller of the P2P group.
Patil from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the first STA is a controller of the P2P group (¶ [0060], see specifically group owner).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to organize dependent nodes into peer groups and allow them to communicate directly in the invention of Ajami as taught by Patil.
The motivation is that having the peer device act as a group owner in a peer to peer group assigning the TXOP to its peer nodes allows the nodes to bypass the AP which reduces overhead as the AP would otherwise need to repeat the transmission.
Regarding Claim 17, Ajami fails to explicitly teach the fourth STA is outside of the P2P group.
Patil from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the fourth STA is outside of the P2P group (¶ [0060], see specifically group owner)
The manner of combining the invention of Patil and the invention of Ajami is to assign the shared TXOP to the group owner taught by Patil (which is behaving as a soft AP as taught within Ajami in ¶ 0053) which will use that shared TXOP to communicate with its peer stations, and that the remainder of the TXOP that is returned to the AP can be used on a different device either within or outside the group.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to organize dependent nodes into peer groups and allow them to communicate directly in the invention of Ajami as taught by Patil.
The motivation is that having the peer device act as a group owner in a peer to peer group assigning the TXOP to its peer nodes allows the nodes to bypass the AP which reduces overhead as the AP would otherwise need to repeat the transmission.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, The Office Action cites to the sharing trigger message as disclosing the elements/features "obtain a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for transmission of a frame on a link" (see, Office Action, p. 3). However, as shown above, although the sharing trigger message 412 may include information identifying the station to which the shared TXOP duration 404 is assigned, information identifying the AP, and information identifying the duration of the shared TXOP duration 404, the sharing trigger message does not include the TXOP itself.
The Office Action cites to the trigger frame as disclosing the elements/features "allocate a portion of the TXOP to a STA" (see, Office Action, p. 3). However, as shown above, although the trigger frame 420 may allow the peer STA to transmit data to STA1 during the shared TXOP duration 404, there is no mention of allocating a portion of the TXOP.
The Applicant respectfully submits that in Ajami, the STA receives a time allocation from the AP, not the TXOP itself. The STA in Ajami does not independently "obtain" a TXOP (e.g., by winning channel contention) and does not "allocate" a portion of the TXOP to another station. Instead, the STA simply uses the shared time for peer communication. Further, in Ajami, what the STA relays to peers is information identifying parameters for wireless communications between the wireless station and the one or more other devices. These parameters include things like puncturing patterns and timing information - not a TXOP allocation notification. Ajami's STA does not independently allocate a portion of a TXOP to another STA - it merely relays communication parameters and communicates with peers during the already-AP-allocated shared duration.
Examiner disagrees, and cites to ¶ [0051]:
[0051] At the end of the shared TXOP duration 404, a portion of TXOP 402 may still remain for the AP to communicate with other STAs in the AP's basic service set. Between the end of shared TXOP duration 404 and the end of TXOP 402, thus, the AP may transmit data frames (e.g., data frames 426) to other stations (e.g., STA2) in the network.
Examiner submits that there are no requirements in the claim that the non-AP STA contend for the TXOP and get the TXOP itself. The language of paragraph 51 is explicit, a portion of the shared TXOP may remain, the phrasing may implies that a portion also may not remain, which means the TXOP could be designated as a shared frame essentially in its entirety. This TXOP is granted to the First STA and Second STA for peer to peer data. Therefore, Examiner submits that Ajami teaches this limitation.
Secondly, the trigger frame from the first client to the second client, is an allocation remainder of the TXOP such that it can transmit data and would teach the limitation as it is allocating a portion of the TXOP to the second station.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights