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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944).
Regarding Claim 1, Sun discloses a method performed at a wireless device operating as a shared access point (see Fig. 4 i.e., shared AP 402-b & Para [0061] i.e., shared AP & [0066-0070] i.e., AP 402-b may be a shared AP) in a wireless network (see Fig. 4), the method comprising: wirelessly receiving a first trigger frame (see Fig. 4 i.e., MU-RTS TXS trigger frame 430) sent by a sharing access point (see Fig. 4 i.e., sharing AP 402-a & Para’s [0061] i.e., sharing AP & [0066-0070] i.e., AP 402-a may be a sharing AP) in the wireless network to allocate a portion of a transmit opportunity of the sharing access point to the shared access point. The claim feature of “to allocate a portion of a transmit opportunity of the sharing access point to the shared access point” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim (i.e., see Outdry Techs. Corp V. Geox Pg.’s 2-3 regarding statement of intended use), (see Para’s [0061] i.e., TXOPs may be shared between APs 102…For example, a sharing AP 102 may utilize an AP-specific AID associated with a shared AP 102 to allocate a portion of a TXOP obtained by the sharing AP 102 to the shared AP 102, [0068] i.e., For example, the wireless communication network 400 may include an AP 402-a and an AP 402-b. The AP 402-a may obtain a TXOP associated with communication via a wireless channel (such as contention-based TXOP), [0069] i.e., The AP 402-a may determine to share (such as allocate or assign) one or more portions of the TXOP with one or more other APs 402 with which the AP 402-a may communicate. In the example of Fig. 4, the AP 402-a may determine to allocate a portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b…For example, the AP 402-a may allocate time and/or frequency resources to the AP 402-b associated with the TXOP that the AP 402-b may use to communicate one or more frames 440 & [0070] i.e., To allocate the portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b (i.e., “shared AP”), the AP 402-a (i.e., “sharing AP”) may transmit a frame 430 to the AP 402-b. For example, the frame 430 may be a frame that allocates an indicated portion of a TXOP to an indicated device. For instance, the frame 430 may include one or more fields that indicate resources of the TXOP allocated by the frame 430…the frame 430 may be a trigger frame such as MU-RTS TXS frame)
And a plurality of resource units allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point (see Para’s [0049] i.e., resource units (RUs), [0054] i.e., resource units (RUs) associated with each portion of the TXOP, [0058] i.e., allocation of RUs, [0069] i.e., the AP 402-a may allocate time and/or frequency resources to the AP 402-b associated with the TXOP that the AP 402-b may use, [0070] i.e., To allocate the portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b, the AP 402-a may transmit a frame 430 to the AP 402-b…the frame 430 may include one or more fields that indicate resources of the TXOP allocated by the frame 430 & [0092-0093] i.e., The RU allocation subfield 615 may indicate one or more RUs of the portion of the TXOP allocated to the AP)
While Sun discloses a plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point (see Para’s [0049], [0054], [0058], [0069-0070] & [0092-0093]), Sun does not disclose the claim features of identifying an interfered resource unit of the plurality of resource units; generating a second trigger frame to return the interfered resource unit for use by the sharing access point, the second trigger frame indicating the interfered resource unit; and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the sharing access point to return the interfered resource unit for use by the sharing access point. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944).
Shen discloses a shared AP identifying an interfered resource unit of a plurality of resource units, (see Fig. 4 i.e., plurality of resource units & Para’s [0161-0162] i.e., Similarly, during downlink transmissions, the shared AP sends, on a channel or different RUs (i.e., “plurality of resource units”), downlink data to one or more shared STAs associated with the shared AP [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module (i.e., the communication module may be of a sharing AP apparatus according to Fig. 17 & Para [0468]), a second response frame from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit & [0013] i.e., and a transmission direction of the second shared AP during the coordinated transmission is downlink, the sharing AP indicates the second shared AP to send a third frame to the third STA, where the second shared AP is a serving AP of the third STA, the third STA is a STA to which the second shared AP is to send downlink data on a second RU, and the third frame is used to indicate the third STA to return a third acknowledgement frame to the second shared AP on the second RU after receiving the third frame…On the second RU, there is an intersection in time domain and frequency domain between the second acknowledgement frame in the uplink direction and the third frame in a downlink direction. In this case, the second shared AP may determine, based on whether a reply from the third STA to the third frame is received, whether the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference RU & [0308])
generating a second trigger frame to return the interfered resource unit for use by the sharing access point, (see Para [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit)
the second trigger frame indicating the interfered resource unit; (see Para [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit)
and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the sharing access point to return the interfered resource unit for use by the sharing access point (see Para’s [0013-0014] i.e., the sharing AP prohibits downlink transmission on a sub-channel on which the interference RU is located, [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit & [0062] i.e., the processing module (i.e., “sharing AP”) is further configured to prohibit downlink transmission on a sub-channel on which the interference RU is located).
(Shen suggests the shared AP transmits the response frame including the interfered resource unit to the sharing AP for controlling and avoiding the interference in multi-AP coordinated transmission, (see Para’s [0013-0014], [0021], [0037], [0061-0062] & [0162])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point as disclosed in Sun to perform identifying, by the shared access point, an interfered resource unit of the plurality of resource units and generate a second trigger frame to return the interfered resource unit as disclosed in the teachings of Shen who discloses generating and transmitting, a second trigger frame indicating the interfered resource unit to the sharing access point, because the motivation lies in Shen that the shared AP transmits the response frame including the interfered resource unit to the sharing AP for controlling and avoiding the interference in multi-AP coordinated transmission.
Regarding Claim 15, Sun discloses a wireless device (see Fig. 10 & Para [0113-0114]) to function as a shared access point (see Fig. 4 i.e., shared AP 402-b & Para [0061] i.e., shared AP & [0066-0070] i.e., AP 402-b may be a shared AP) in a wireless network (see Fig. 4), the wireless device (see Fig. 10) comprising: a radio frequency transceiver (see Fig. 10 & Para [0116] i.e., transceiver); a memory device storing a set of instructions (see Fig. 10 & Para [0115] i.e., software stored in a memory); and a set of one or more processors coupled to the memory device (see Para’s [0113-0114]), wherein the set of instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the set of one or more processors (see Para [0115]), causes the sharing access point to perform: wirelessly receiving a first trigger frame (see Fig. 4 i.e., MU-RTS TXS trigger frame 430) sent by a sharing access point (see Fig. 4 i.e., sharing AP 402-a & Para’s [0061] i.e., sharing AP & [0066-0070] i.e., AP 402-a may be a sharing AP) in the wireless network to allocate a portion of a transmit opportunity of the sharing access point to the shared access point; The claim feature of “to allocate a portion of a transmit opportunity of the sharing access point to the shared access point” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim (i.e., see Outdry Techs. Corp V. Geox Pg.’s 2-3 regarding statement of intended use), (see Para’s [0061] i.e., TXOPs may be shared between APs 102…For example, a sharing AP 102 may utilize an AP-specific AID associated with a shared AP 102 to allocate a portion of a TXOP obtained by the sharing AP 102 to the shared AP 102, [0068] i.e., For example, the wireless communication network 400 may include an AP 402-a and an AP 402-b. The AP 402-a may obtain a TXOP associated with communication via a wireless channel (such as contention-based TXOP), [0069] i.e., The AP 402-a may determine to share (such as allocate or assign) one or more portions of the TXOP with one or more other APs 402 with which the AP 402-a may communicate. In the example of Fig. 4, the AP 402-a may determine to allocate a portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b…For example, the AP 402-a may allocate time and/or frequency resources to the AP 402-b associated with the TXOP that the AP 402-b may use to communicate one or more frames 440 & [0070] i.e., To allocate the portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b (i.e., “shared AP”), the AP 402-a (i.e., “sharing AP”) may transmit a frame 430 to the AP 402-b. For example, the frame 430 may be a frame that allocates an indicated portion of a TXOP to an indicated device. For instance, the frame 430 may include one or more fields that indicate resources of the TXOP allocated by the frame 430…the frame 430 may be a trigger frame such as MU-RTS TXS frame)
And a plurality of resource units allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point (see Para’s [0049] i.e., resource units (RUs), [0054] i.e., resource units (RUs) associated with each portion of the TXOP, [0058] i.e., allocation of RUs, [0069] i.e., the AP 402-a may allocate time and/or frequency resources to the AP 402-b associated with the TXOP that the AP 402-b may use, [0070] i.e., To allocate the portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b, the AP 402-a may transmit a frame 430 to the AP 402-b…the frame 430 may include one or more fields that indicate resources of the TXOP allocated by the frame 430 & [0092-0093] i.e., The RU allocation subfield 615 may indicate one or more RUs of the portion of the TXOP allocated to the AP)
While Sun discloses a plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point (see Para’s [0049], [0054], [0058], [0069-0070] & [0092-0093]), Sun does not disclose the claim features of identifying an interfered resource unit of the plurality of resource units; generating a second trigger frame to return the interfered resource unit for use by the sharing access point, the second trigger frame indicating the interfered resource unit; and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the sharing access point to return the interfered resource unit for use by the sharing access point. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944).
Shen discloses a shared AP identifying an interfered resource unit of a plurality of resource units, (see Fig. 4 i.e., plurality of resource units & Para’s [0161-0162] i.e., Similarly, during downlink transmissions, the shared AP sends, on a channel or different RUs (i.e., “plurality of resource units”), downlink data to one or more shared STAs associated with the shared AP [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module (i.e., the communication module may be of a sharing AP apparatus according to Fig. 17 & Para [0468]), a second response frame from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit & [0013] i.e., and a transmission direction of the second shared AP during the coordinated transmission is downlink, the sharing AP indicates the second shared AP to send a third frame to the third STA, where the second shared AP is a serving AP of the third STA, the third STA is a STA to which the second shared AP is to send downlink data on a second RU, and the third frame is used to indicate the third STA to return a third acknowledgement frame to the second shared AP on the second RU after receiving the third frame…On the second RU, there is an intersection in time domain and frequency domain between the second acknowledgement frame in the uplink direction and the third frame in a downlink direction. In this case, the second shared AP may determine, based on whether a reply from the third STA to the third frame is received, whether the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference RU & [0308])
generating a second trigger frame to return the interfered resource unit for use by the sharing access point, (see Para [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit)
the second trigger frame indicating the interfered resource unit; (see Para [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit)
and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the sharing access point to return the interfered resource unit for use by the sharing access point (see Para’s [0013-0014] i.e., the sharing AP prohibits downlink transmission on a sub-channel on which the interference RU is located, [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit & [0062] i.e., the processing module (i.e., “sharing AP”) is further configured to prohibit downlink transmission on a sub-channel on which the interference RU is located).
(Shen suggests the shared AP transmits the response frame including the interfered resource unit to the sharing AP for controlling and avoiding the interference in multi-AP coordinated transmission, (see Para’s [0013-0014], [0021], [0037], [0061-0062] & [0162])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point as disclosed in Sun to perform identifying, by the shared access point, an interfered resource unit of the plurality of resource units and generate a second trigger frame to return the interfered resource unit as disclosed in the teachings of Shen who discloses generating and transmitting, a second trigger frame indicating the interfered resource unit to the sharing access point, because the motivation lies in Shen that the shared AP transmits the response frame including the interfered resource unit to the sharing AP for controlling and avoiding the interference in multi-AP coordinated transmission.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, further in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687), and further in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886).
Regarding Claims 2 and 16, the combination of Sun in view of Shen discloses the method and wireless device of claims 1 and 15 including wherein the second trigger frame includes an indication of the interfered resource unit (Shen see Para [0061]), but does not disclose wherein the second trigger frame comprises an identifier of the sharing access point and an allocation duration value. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687).
Lopez discloses wherein the second trigger frame comprises an identifier of the sharing access point and an allocation duration value (see Para’s [0048-0049] i.e., AP2 decides to participate in the sharing of the TXOP and thus responds by sending a request (Req) frame to the TXOP owner such as AP1 suggests the request includes an identification or identifier of the sharing AP, [0053] i.e., an AP transmitting a request frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) in response to a TX indication frame (i.e., “first trigger frame”) from the TXOP owner, e.g., like AP2 in the examples of Figs. 5 and 6, may set the duration field (i.e., “allocation duration value”) in the request frame).
(Lopez suggests the AP2 sets the duration field in the request frame in such a way that it protects the remaining duration of the shared TXOP (see Para’s [0048-0049 & [0053])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger frame such as the second response frame from the second shared AP including the indication of the interfered resource unit as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen to be implemented as the second trigger response frame disclosed in Lopez who discloses wherein the second trigger frame comprises an identifier of the sharing access point and an allocation duration value, because the motivation lies in Lopez that the AP2 sets the duration field in the request frame in such a way that it protects the remaining duration of the shared TXOP.
The combination of Sun in view of Shen, and further in view of Lopez does not explicitly disclose the second trigger frame comprises the identifier of the sharing access point. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886).
Wang discloses a second trigger response frame comprises the identifier of the sharing access point (see Para’s [0120] i.e., sharing AP and shared AP, [0152] i.e., the requesting AP may be a coordinating AP (i.e., “sharing AP”) which transmits a MAPS setup request frame (i.e., “first trigger”)…Once an AP receives a MAPS setup request frame, the AP may respond with a MAPS setup response frame which may include one or more MAPS operating parameters such as MAPS ID, & [0131] i.e., the MAPS ID may be implemented as the MAC address of the coordinating AP (i.e., “sharing AP”)).
(Wang suggests the MAPS setup response may include one or more MAPS operating parameters such as RUs during any coordinated MAPS transmissions for efficiently managing a shared TXOP, (see Para’s [0120], [0144], & [0152])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger response frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, and further in view of Lopez to comprise the identifier of the sharing access point included in the second trigger response frame sent from a shared access point to a sharing access point as disclosed in Wang, because the motivation lies in Wang that the MAPS setup response may include one or more MAPS operating parameters such as RUs during any coordinated MAPS transmissions for efficiently managing a shared TXOP.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944), further in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687), and further in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886) as applied to claim 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Lim et al. US (2024/0349094).
Regarding Claims 3 and 17, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang discloses the method and wireless device of claims 2 and 16, including the first trigger frame comprising a user information subfield including the identifier of the access point, indication of resource unit information, and the allocation duration value which are part of the user information field (Sun, see Fig. 6 i.e. use info field 605 & Para’s [0092-0093] i.e., For example, the user info field 605 may include various subfields including an AID subfield 610, an RU allocation subfield 615, an allocation duration subfield 620…The RU allocation subfield 615 may indicate one or more RUs of the portion of the TXOP allocated to the AP), but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the second trigger frame comprises the user information subfield; and wherein the identifier of the sharing access point, the indication of the interfered resource unit, and the allocation duration value are part of the user information subfield. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Lim et al. US (2024/0349094).
Lim discloses a second trigger frame response may use the same format as the format used for a first trigger frame that is transmitted and/or received (see Para’s [0240] i.e., the trigger frame may include user information list fields in the frame body, [0248-0249] & [0253] i.e., the TB PPDU transmitting the sensing response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) may be transmitted using the same PPDU format as the PPDU format in which the sensing polling frame (or sensing trigger frame (i.e., “first trigger frame”)) is transmitted).
(Lim suggests the first trigger frame and second trigger frame response are communicated between an initiator and responder is for performing a sensing operation in order to determine if the medium is idle in order to successfully perform transmission through the corresponding medium, (See Para’s [0084] & [0248-0253])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger frame response as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang to use the same format as the format used for the first trigger frame as disclosed in the teachings of Lim, which results in the second trigger frame comprising the user information subfield including the identifier of the sharing access point, the indication of the interfered resource unit, and the allocation duration value, because the motivation lies in Lim that the first trigger frame and second trigger frame response are communicated between an initiator and responder for performing a sensing operation in order to determine if the medium is idle in order to successfully perform transmission through the corresponding medium.
Claims 4, 6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944), further in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687), and further in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886) as applied to claims 2, 16, and 18 above, further in view of Park US (2021/0360525), and further in view of Nayak et al. US (2023/0073868).
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang discloses the method and wireless device of claims 2 and 16, further comprising: determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame (Lopez, see Para [0053]), but does not disclose determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame based on all of: an allocation duration value of the first trigger frame, an aSIFStime value, and an expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Park US (2021/0360525).
Park discloses determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame (see claim 1 i.e., transmitting to the AP, the HE TB PPDU (i.e., “second trigger frame”) in response to the received trigger frame & Para [0007] i.e., response PPDU) based on all of: an allocation duration value of the first trigger frame, (see claim 1 i.e., wherein the HE TB PPDU includes a second duration field, wherein a value of the second duration field is set based on a value obtained from the first duration field of the trigger frame (i.e., “allocation duration value of the first trigger frame”) minus a SIFS and a duration of the HE TB PPDU & Para’s [0200-0201])
an aSIFS time value, (see claim 1 i.e., wherein the HE TB PPDU includes a second duration field, wherein a value of the second duration field is set based on a value obtained from the first duration field of the trigger frame minus a SIFS (i.e., “aSIFS time value”) and a duration of the HE TB PPDU & Para’s [0200-0201])
and an expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame (see claim 1 i.e., wherein the HE TB PPDU includes a second duration field, wherein a value of the second duration field is set based on a value obtained from the first duration field of the trigger frame minus a SIFS and a duration of the HE TB PPDU (i.e., “expected duration value”) & Para’s [0200-0201])
(Park suggests the value of the duration field in the HE TB PPDU response is determined for indicating the remaining duration of the TXOP to the AP, (see Para’s [0115] & Para’s [0200-0201])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang to be determined based on all of an allocation duration value of the first trigger frame, an aSIFStime value, and an expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame as disclosed in the teachings of Park, because the motivation lies in Park that the value of the duration field in the HE TB PPDU response is determined for indicating the remaining duration of the TXOP to the AP.
While Sun discloses the shared AP transmits a clear-to-send frame to the sharing AP in response to the received trigger frame 430 (see Fig. 4 i.e., CTS frame 435 & Para [0080]), the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Park does not disclose determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame is further based on a duration value for transmitting a clear-to-send frame. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Nayak et al. US (2023/0073868).
Nayak discloses a receiver determines a value of a duration field of a trigger response frame based on using the value in the duration field of a received RTS frame and subtracts from it the time to transmit a CTS frame + one SIFS (see Para [0096])
(Nayak suggests the duration field value is used for reserving the medium for data transmission between the sender and the receiver and for reducing collisions due to hidden terminal scenario, (see Para [0096])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the determined allocation duration value of the second trigger frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Park to be further based on a duration value for transmitting a clear-to-send frame used for determining a value of a duration field as disclosed in Nayak, because the motivation lies in Nayak that the duration field value is used for reserving the medium for data transmission between the sender and the receiver and for reducing collisions due to hidden terminal scenario.
Regarding Claims 6 and 20, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang discloses the method and wireless device of claims 4 and 18, but does not disclose further comprising: determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame both: (b) the expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame plus the aSIFStime value. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Park US (2021/0360525).
Park discloses determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame (see claim 1 i.e., transmitting to the AP, the HE TB PPDU (i.e., “second trigger frame”) in response to the received trigger frame & Para [0007] i.e., response PPDU) based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame: (b) the expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame plus the aSIFStime value (see claim 1 i.e., wherein the HE TB PPDU includes a second duration field, wherein a value of the second duration field is set based on a value obtained from the first duration field of the trigger frame (i.e., “allocation duration value of the first trigger frame”) minus a SIFS (i.e., “aSIFS value”) and a duration of the HE TB PPDU (i.e., “expected duration value”) & Para’s [0200-0201])
(Park suggests the value of the duration field in the HE TB PPDU response is determined for indicating the remaining duration of the TXOP to the AP, (see Para’s [0115] & Para’s [0200-0201])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang to be determined based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame: (b) the expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame plus the aSIFStime value as disclosed in the teachings of Park, because the motivation lies in Park that the value of the duration field in the HE TB PPDU response is determined for indicating the remaining duration of the TXOP to the AP.
While Sun discloses the shared AP transmits a clear-to-send frame to the sharing AP in response to the received trigger frame 430 (see Fig. 4 i.e., CTS frame 435 & Para [0080]), the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Park does not disclose the allocation duration value determined for the second trigger frame is further based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame (a) the duration value for transmitting the clear-to-send frame plus the aSIFStime value. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Nayak et al. US (2023/0073868).
Nayak discloses a receiver determines a value of a duration field of a trigger response frame based on using the value in the duration field of a received RTS frame (i.e., “first trigger frame”) and subtracts from it the time to transmit a CTS frame + one SIFS (see Para [0096])
(Nayak suggests the duration field value is used for reserving the medium for data transmission between the sender and the receiver and for reducing collisions due to hidden terminal scenario, (see Para [0096])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Park to be further determined based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame (a) the duration value for transmitting the clear-to-send frame plus the aSIFStime as disclosed in the teachings of Nayak, because the motivation lies in Nayak that the duration field value is used for reserving the medium for data transmission between the sender and the receiver and for reducing collisions due to hidden terminal scenario.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944), further in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687), further in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886), further in view of Park US (2021/0360525), and further in view of Nayak et al. US (2023/0073868) as applied to claims 4 and 18 above, and further in view of Ong et al. US (2012/0182886).
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, further in view of Park, and further in view of Nayak discloses the method and wireless device of claims 4 and 18, including the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame (Park, see Para [0201]), the duration value for transmitting the clear-to-send frame (Nayak, see Para [0096]), the aSIFStime value (Park, see Para [0201]), and the expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame (Park, see Para [0201]) and a memory buffer at the shared access point (see Fig. 18, memory 1830 & Para [0520]), but does not disclose the values are each stored in the memory buffer. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Ong et al. US (2012/0182886).
Ong discloses TXOP parameter values may be stored in a memory buffer of a device (see Para [0042] i.e., the device 10 may have received and stored specific TXOP limit parameter sets earlier, and the device 10 may define the TXOP limit values on the basis of the parameter values retrieved in memory)
(Ong suggests the TXOP parameter values are stored and retrieved from the memory by the device for defining the TXOP limit value (see Para’s [0028-0029] & [0042])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the values used for determining the allocation duration value as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, further in view of Park, and further in view of Nayak to be stored in the memory buffer of the shared access point based on the teachings of Ong who discloses TXOP parameter values may be stored in a memory buffer of a device, because the motivation lies in Ong that the TXOP parameter values are stored and retrieved from the memory by the device for defining the TXOP limit value indicating the duration which the device is allowed to transmit.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Sun et al. US (2024/0090046).
Regarding Claims 7 and 21, the combination of Sun in view of Shen discloses the method and wireless device of claims 1 and 15 wherein the first trigger frame is an MU-RTS frame (Sun, see Para [0070]), but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the first trigger frame is formatted using a non-High Throughput (HT) Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) format that allows the first trigger frame to be duplicated over a total available bandwidth. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Sun et al. US (2024/0090046).
Sun discloses wherein the first trigger frame (i.e., MU-RTS) is formatted using a non-High Throughput (HT) Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) format that allows the first trigger frame to be duplicated over a total available bandwidth (see Para’s [0053] i.e., The TXOP owner AP 105-b may transmit the MU-RTS frame 205 in a non-high-throughput duplicate PPDU that indicates the time resources of the first TXOP portion 203 allocated to the AP 105-a in each of the multiple channels of an operating bandwidth for AP 105-b (such as, in each of multiple 20 MHz subchannels)
(Sun suggests the MU-RTS frame transmitted in a non-high-throughput duplicate PPDU may include an indication of the TXOP portion allocated to the respective AP so that other APs do not need to be operating on the same primary 20 MHz channel to receive and process the MU-RTS frame 205, (see Para’s [0053-0054])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the MU-RTS frame transmitted by the AP as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen to be formatted using a non-High Throughput (HT) Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) format that allows the first trigger frame to be duplicated over a total available bandwidth according to the duplicate MU-RTS frame transmitted by the AP as disclosed in Sun, because the motivation lies in Sun that the MU-RTS frame transmitted in a non-high-throughput duplicate PPDU may include an indication of the TXOP portion allocated to the respective AP so that other APs do not need to be operating on the same primary 20 MHz channel to receive and process the MU-RTS frame 205.
Claims 8, 14, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944), further in view of Dakshinkar et al. US (2022/0132331), and further in view of Desai et al. US (2024/0357648).
Regarding Claim 8, Sun discloses a method performed at a wireless device operating as a first shared access point (see Fig. 4 i.e., shared AP 402-b & Para [0061] i.e., shared AP & [0066-0070] i.e., AP 402-b may be a shared AP) in a wireless network (see Fig. 4), the method comprising: wirelessly receiving a first trigger frame (see Fig. 4 i.e., MU-RTS TXS trigger frame 430) sent by a sharing access point (see Fig. 4 i.e., sharing AP 402-a & Para’s [0061] i.e., sharing AP & [0066-0070] i.e., AP 402-a may be a sharing AP) in the wireless network to allocate a portion of a transmit opportunity of the sharing access point to the first shared access point; The claim feature of “to allocate a portion of a transmit opportunity of the sharing access point to the shared access point” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim (i.e., see Outdry Techs. Corp V. Geox Pg.’s 2-3 regarding statement of intended use), (see Para’s [0061] i.e., TXOPs may be shared between APs 102…For example, a sharing AP 102 may utilize an AP-specific AID associated with a shared AP 102 to allocate a portion of a TXOP obtained by the sharing AP 102 to the shared AP 102, [0068] i.e., For example, the wireless communication network 400 may include an AP 402-a and an AP 402-b. The AP 402-a may obtain a TXOP associated with communication via a wireless channel (such as contention-based TXOP), [0069] i.e., The AP 402-a may determine to share (such as allocate or assign) one or more portions of the TXOP with one or more other APs 402 with which the AP 402-a may communicate. In the example of Fig. 4, the AP 402-a may determine to allocate a portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b…For example, the AP 402-a may allocate time and/or frequency resources to the AP 402-b associated with the TXOP that the AP 402-b may use to communicate one or more frames 440 & [0070] i.e., To allocate the portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b (i.e., “shared AP”), the AP 402-a (i.e., “sharing AP”) may transmit a frame 430 to the AP 402-b. For example, the frame 430 may be a frame that allocates an indicated portion of a TXOP to an indicated device. For instance, the frame 430 may include one or more fields that indicate resources of the TXOP allocated by the frame 430…the frame 430 may be a trigger frame such as MU-RTS TXS frame)
And a plurality of resource units allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point (see Para’s [0049] i.e., resource units (RUs), [0054] i.e., resource units (RUs) associated with each portion of the TXOP, [0058] i.e., allocation of RUs, [0069] i.e., the AP 402-a may allocate time and/or frequency resources to the AP 402-b associated with the TXOP that the AP 402-b may use, [0070] i.e., To allocate the portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b, the AP 402-a may transmit a frame 430 to the AP 402-b…the frame 430 may include one or more fields that indicate resources of the TXOP allocated by the frame 430 & [0092-0093] i.e., The RU allocation subfield 615 may indicate one or more RUs of the portion of the TXOP allocated to the AP)
While Sun discloses a plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point (see Para’s [0049], [0054], [0058], [0069-0070] & [0092-0093]), Sun does not disclose the claim features of determining a particular resource unit that is interfered with by one or more overlapping basic service sets at the first shared access point; generating a second trigger frame to forward the particular resource unit for use by an access point in the wireless network, the second trigger frame indicating the particular resource unit; and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the access point. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944).
Shen discloses a first shared AP determining a particular resource unit that is interfered with by one or more overlapping basic service sets at the first shared access point, (see Fig. 4 i.e., plurality of resource units & Para’s [0161-0162] i.e., Similarly, during downlink transmissions, the shared AP sends, on a channel or different RUs (i.e., “plurality of resource units”), downlink data to one or more shared STAs associated with the shared AP [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module (i.e., the communication module may be of a sharing AP apparatus according to Fig. 17 & Para [0468]), a second response frame from the second shared AP (i.e., “first shared AP”), where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit & [0013] i.e., When the transmission direction of the first shared AP (i.e., first shared AP may be an “overlapping basic service set”) during the coordinated transmission is uplink, and a transmission direction of the second shared AP during the coordinated transmission is downlink, the sharing AP indicates the second shared AP (i.e., “first shared AP”) to send a third frame to the third STA, where the second shared AP is a serving AP of the third STA, the third STA is a STA to which the second shared AP is to send downlink data on a second RU, and the third frame is used to indicate the third STA to return a third acknowledgement frame to the second shared AP on the second RU after receiving the third frame…On the second RU, there is an intersection in time domain and frequency domain between the second acknowledgement frame in the uplink direction and the third frame in a downlink direction. In this case, the second shared AP may determine, based on whether a reply from the third STA to the third frame is received, whether the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference RU. In this way, interference from downlink transmission performed by the first shared AP (i.e., overlapping basic service set such as first shared AP) to uplink transmission performed by the second shared AP can be further avoided & [0308])
generating a second trigger frame to forward the particular resource unit for use by a sharing access point in the wireless network, (see Para [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit)
the second trigger frame indicating the particular resource unit; (see Para [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit)
and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the sharing access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the sharing access point (see Para’s [0013-0014] i.e., the sharing AP prohibits downlink transmission on a sub-channel on which the interference RU is located, [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit & [0062] i.e., the processing module (i.e., “sharing AP”) is further configured to prohibit downlink transmission on a sub-channel on which the interference RU is located).
(Shen suggests the shared AP transmits the response frame including the interfered resource unit to the sharing AP for controlling and avoiding the interference in multi-AP coordinated transmission, (see Para’s [0013-0014], [0021], [0037], [0061-0062] & [0162])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point as disclosed in Sun to perform determining, by the shared access point, an interfered resource unit of the plurality of resource units and generate a second trigger frame to return the interfered resource unit as disclosed in the teachings of Shen who discloses generating and transmitting, a second trigger frame indicating the interfered resource unit to a sharing access point, because the motivation lies in Shen that the shared AP transmits the response frame including the interfered resource unit to the sharing AP for controlling and avoiding the interference in multi-AP coordinated transmission.
The combination of Sun in view of Shen does not disclose the claim feature of the one or more overlapping basic service sets at both the sharing access point and the first shared access point. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Dakshinkar et al. US (2022/0132331).
Dakshinkar discloses an overlapping basic service set (see Fig. 2A i.e., AP 206c cell may be an overlapping basic service set at both access points 206a and 206b) at both a first access point (see Fig. 2A i.e., AP 206a) and a second access point (see Fig. 2A i.e., 206b), (see Para’s [0005] & [0044] i.e., three APs 206a, AP 206b, and AP 206c, all of which are part of the same ESS, and experience co-channel OBSS).
(Dakshinkar suggests UL scheduling information can be read by any AP in an ESS used to improve network performance including UL scheduling information from neighboring co-channel APs received by an AP in the same ESS to minimize the latency for UL latency-sensitive traffic in the ESS and to minimize contention amongst STAs connected to different APs on the same channel thereby improving system capacity (see Fig. 2A & Para’s [0014] & [0044])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the overlapping basic service set at the first shared AP as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen to be an overlapping basic service set at both the sharing access point and the first shared access point according to the configuration of access points disclosed in the teachings of Dakshinkar who discloses an overlapping basic service set at both a first access point and a second access point in an ESS, because the motivation lies in Dakshinkar that UL scheduling information can be read by any AP in an ESS used to improve network performance including UL scheduling information from neighboring co-channel APs received by an AP in the same ESS to minimize the latency for UL latency-sensitive traffic in the ESS and to minimize contention amongst STAs connected to different APs on the same channel thereby improving system capacity.
While Shen discloses a first shared AP generating and transmitting the second trigger frame including the particular resource unit (i.e., interfered RU) to the sharing AP and a second shared AP (Shen, see Para’s [0013] i.e., sharing AP…the first shared AP may be the claimed “second shared AP” and the second shared AP may be the claimed “first shared AP” & [0061]) The combination of Sun in view of Shen, and further in view of Dakshinkar does not disclose the claim features of generating the second trigger frame to forward the particular resource unit for use by a second shared access point in the wireless network, and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the second shared access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Desai et al. US (2024/0357648).
Desai discloses a first shared AP may generate RU interference information to forward the particular resource unit for use by a second shared access point in the wireless network, (see Figure 1 i.e., APs 102-2 and 102-3 may be shared APs as disclosed in Para [0025], Figure 5 & Para’s [0024] i.e., the controller 130 is included within or integrated with an AP 102…For example each AP 102 mat include a controller 130, Para’s [0030-0036] i.e., the method 300 may be performed by a controller 130 (i.e., suggests method 300 may be performed by a “first shared AP”) which transmits interference information on one or more shared RUs to a “second shared AP”, & Para’s [0037-0040] i.e., the method 400 may be performed by an AP 102 (i.e., suggests method 400 may also be performed by a shared AP)…at block 404 the AP (i.e., may be a shared AP) may receive the interference information on one or more shared RUs from another or second shared AP)
and wirelessly transmitting the interference information of the shared RU to the second shared access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point (see Para’s [0031], [0036], & [0038-0040]).
(Desai suggests the interference information of the one or more shared RUs may be used to optimize the allocation of shared RUs among the muli-AP coordination group (MAPC) for mitigating the interference (see Para’s [0017-0019] & [0039-0040])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger frame including the particular resource unit (i.e., interfered RU) transmitted by the first shared AP as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, and further in view of Dakshinkar to be transmitted to the second shared access point based on the teachings of Desai who discloses a first shared AP wirelessly transmitting interference information of a shared RU to a second shared access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point, because the motivation lies in Desai that the interference information of the one or more shared RUs may be used to optimize the allocation of shared RUs among the muli-AP coordination group (MAPC) for mitigating the interference.
Regarding Claims 14 and 28, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, and further in view of Dakshinkar discloses the method and wireless device of claims 8 and 22, but does not disclose the claim feature of further comprising: identifying, using a sequential approach or a concurrent approach, the second shared access point to which to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point from among a plurality of candidate shared access points in the wireless network. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Desai et al. US (2024/0357648).
Desai discloses a first shared access point identifying, using a sequential approach or a concurrent approach, the second shared access point to which to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point from among a plurality of candidate shared access points in the wireless network (see Para’s [0024], [0030] i.e., method 300 may be performed by a controller 130 (i.e., may be a first shared AP), [0031] i.e., the controller may obtain the interference information from the one or more APs (i.e., “candidate shared access points”) over a period of time (e.g., as the APs report the interference information to the controller), [0035-0036], & [0037-0039] i.e., the method 400 may be performed by an AP 102 (i.e., may be a second shared AP)…the AP receives interference information on one or more shared RUs based on a request for interference information to one or more shared APs (i.e., first shared AP reports the interference information) (i.e., uses a sequential approach based on first shared AP communicating with each of the APs (i.e., Para [0031]) and identifying the second shared AP based on the received interference request for sending the interference information)).
(Desai suggests the interference information of the one or more shared RUs may be used to optimize the allocation of shared RUs among the muli-AP coordination group (MAPC) for mitigating the interference (see Para’s [0017-0019] & [0039-0040])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger frame including the particular resource unit (i.e., interfered RU) transmitted by the first shared AP as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, and further in view of Dakshinkar to be transmitted to an identified second shared access point based on the teachings of Desai who discloses a first shared AP wirelessly transmitting interference information of a shared RU to an identified second shared access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point, because the motivation lies in Desai that the interference information of the one or more shared RUs may be used to optimize the allocation of shared RUs among the muli-AP coordination group (MAPC) for mitigating the interference.
Regarding Claim 22, Sun discloses a wireless device (see Fig. 10 & Para [0113-0114]) to function as a shared access point (see Fig. 4 i.e., shared AP 402-b & Para [0061] i.e., shared AP & [0066-0070] i.e., AP 402-b may be a shared AP) in a wireless network (see Fig. 4), the wireless device (see Fig. 10) comprising: a radio frequency transceiver (see Fig. 10 & Para [0116] i.e., transceiver); a memory device storing a set of instructions (see Fig. 10 & Para [0115] i.e., software stored in a memory); and a set of one or more processors coupled to the memory device (see Para’s [0113-0114]), wherein the set of instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the set of one or more processors (see Para [0115]), causes the first shared access point to perform: wirelessly receiving a first trigger frame (see Fig. 4 i.e., MU-RTS TXS trigger frame 430) sent by a sharing access point (see Fig. 4 i.e., sharing AP 402-a & Para’s [0061] i.e., sharing AP & [0066-0070] i.e., AP 402-a may be a sharing AP) in the wireless network to allocate a portion of a transmit opportunity of the sharing access point to the first shared access point; The claim feature of “to allocate a portion of a transmit opportunity of the sharing access point to the shared access point” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim (i.e., see Outdry Techs. Corp V. Geox Pg.’s 2-3 regarding statement of intended use), (see Para’s [0061] i.e., TXOPs may be shared between APs 102…For example, a sharing AP 102 may utilize an AP-specific AID associated with a shared AP 102 to allocate a portion of a TXOP obtained by the sharing AP 102 to the shared AP 102, [0068] i.e., For example, the wireless communication network 400 may include an AP 402-a and an AP 402-b. The AP 402-a may obtain a TXOP associated with communication via a wireless channel (such as contention-based TXOP), [0069] i.e., The AP 402-a may determine to share (such as allocate or assign) one or more portions of the TXOP with one or more other APs 402 with which the AP 402-a may communicate. In the example of Fig. 4, the AP 402-a may determine to allocate a portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b…For example, the AP 402-a may allocate time and/or frequency resources to the AP 402-b associated with the TXOP that the AP 402-b may use to communicate one or more frames 440 & [0070] i.e., To allocate the portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b (i.e., “shared AP”), the AP 402-a (i.e., “sharing AP”) may transmit a frame 430 to the AP 402-b. For example, the frame 430 may be a frame that allocates an indicated portion of a TXOP to an indicated device. For instance, the frame 430 may include one or more fields that indicate resources of the TXOP allocated by the frame 430…the frame 430 may be a trigger frame such as MU-RTS TXS frame)
And a plurality of resource units allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point (see Para’s [0049] i.e., resource units (RUs), [0054] i.e., resource units (RUs) associated with each portion of the TXOP, [0058] i.e., allocation of RUs, [0069] i.e., the AP 402-a may allocate time and/or frequency resources to the AP 402-b associated with the TXOP that the AP 402-b may use, [0070] i.e., To allocate the portion of the TXOP to the AP 402-b, the AP 402-a may transmit a frame 430 to the AP 402-b…the frame 430 may include one or more fields that indicate resources of the TXOP allocated by the frame 430 & [0092-0093] i.e., The RU allocation subfield 615 may indicate one or more RUs of the portion of the TXOP allocated to the AP)
While Sun discloses a plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point (see Para’s [0049], [0054], [0058], [0069-0070] & [0092-0093]), Sun does not disclose the claim features of determining a particular resource unit that is interfered with by one or more overlapping basic service sets at the first shared access point; generating a second trigger frame to forward the particular resource unit for use by an access point in the wireless network, the second trigger frame indicating the particular resource unit; and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the access point. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944).
Shen discloses a first shared AP determining a particular resource unit that is interfered with by one or more overlapping basic service sets at the first shared access point, (see Fig. 4 i.e., plurality of resource units & Para’s [0161-0162] i.e., Similarly, during downlink transmissions, the shared AP sends, on a channel or different RUs (i.e., “plurality of resource units”), downlink data to one or more shared STAs associated with the shared AP [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module (i.e., the communication module may be of a sharing AP apparatus according to Fig. 17 & Para [0468]), a second response frame from the second shared AP (i.e., “first shared AP”), where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit & [0013] i.e., When the transmission direction of the first shared AP (i.e., first shared AP may be an “overlapping basic service set”) during the coordinated transmission is uplink, and a transmission direction of the second shared AP during the coordinated transmission is downlink, the sharing AP indicates the second shared AP (i.e., “first shared AP”) to send a third frame to the third STA, where the second shared AP is a serving AP of the third STA, the third STA is a STA to which the second shared AP is to send downlink data on a second RU, and the third frame is used to indicate the third STA to return a third acknowledgement frame to the second shared AP on the second RU after receiving the third frame…On the second RU, there is an intersection in time domain and frequency domain between the second acknowledgement frame in the uplink direction and the third frame in a downlink direction. In this case, the second shared AP may determine, based on whether a reply from the third STA to the third frame is received, whether the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference RU. In this way, interference from downlink transmission performed by the first shared AP (i.e., overlapping basic service set such as first shared AP) to uplink transmission performed by the second shared AP can be further avoided & [0308])
generating a second trigger frame to forward the particular resource unit for use by a sharing access point in the wireless network, (see Para [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit)
the second trigger frame indicating the particular resource unit; (see Para [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit)
and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the sharing access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the sharing access point (see Para’s [0013-0014] i.e., the sharing AP prohibits downlink transmission on a sub-channel on which the interference RU is located, [0061] i.e., and receive, through the communication module, a second response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) from the second shared AP, where the second response frame is used to indicate that the second RU (i.e., “interfered resource unit”) is an interference unit & [0062] i.e., the processing module (i.e., “sharing AP”) is further configured to prohibit downlink transmission on a sub-channel on which the interference RU is located).
(Shen suggests the shared AP transmits the response frame including the interfered resource unit to the sharing AP for controlling and avoiding the interference in multi-AP coordinated transmission, (see Para’s [0013-0014], [0021], [0037], [0061-0062] & [0162])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the plurality of resource units (RUs) allocated by the sharing access point to the shared access point as disclosed in Sun to perform determining, by the shared access point, an interfered resource unit of the plurality of resource units and generate a second trigger frame to return the interfered resource unit as disclosed in the teachings of Shen who discloses generating and transmitting, a second trigger frame indicating the interfered resource unit to a sharing access point, because the motivation lies in Shen that the shared AP transmits the response frame including the interfered resource unit to the sharing AP for controlling and avoiding the interference in multi-AP coordinated transmission.
The combination of Sun in view of Shen does not disclose the claim feature of the one or more overlapping basic service sets at both the sharing access point and the first shared access point. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Dakshinkar et al. US (2022/0132331).
Dakshinkar discloses an overlapping basic service set (see Fig. 2A i.e., AP 206c cell may be an overlapping basic service set at both access points 206a and 206b) at both a first access point (see Fig. 2A i.e., AP 206a) and a second access point (see Fig. 2A i.e., 206b), (see Para’s [0005] & [0044] i.e., three APs 206a, AP 206b, and AP 206c, all of which are part of the same ESS, and experience co-channel OBSS).
(Dakshinkar suggests UL scheduling information can be read by any AP in an ESS used to improve network performance including UL scheduling information from neighboring co-channel APs received by an AP in the same ESS to minimize the latency for UL latency-sensitive traffic in the ESS and to minimize contention amongst STAs connected to different APs on the same channel thereby improving system capacity (see Fig. 2A & Para’s [0014] & [0044])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the overlapping basic service set at the first shared AP as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen to be an overlapping basic service set at both the sharing access point and the first shared access point according to the configuration of access points disclosed in the teachings of Dakshinkar who discloses an overlapping basic service set at both a first access point and a second access point in an ESS, because the motivation lies in Dakshinkar that UL scheduling information can be read by any AP in an ESS used to improve network performance including UL scheduling information from neighboring co-channel APs received by an AP in the same ESS to minimize the latency for UL latency-sensitive traffic in the ESS and to minimize contention amongst STAs connected to different APs on the same channel thereby improving system capacity.
While Shen discloses a first shared AP generating and transmitting the second trigger frame including the particular resource unit (i.e., interfered RU) to the sharing AP and a second shared AP (Shen, see Para’s [0013] i.e., sharing AP…the first shared AP may be the claimed “second shared AP” and the second shared AP may be the claimed “first shared AP” & [0061]) The combination of Sun in view of Shen, and further in view of Dakshinkar does not disclose the claim features of generating the second trigger frame to forward the particular resource unit for use by a second shared access point in the wireless network, and wirelessly transmitting the second trigger frame to the second shared access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Desai et al. US (2024/0357648).
Desai discloses a first shared AP may generate RU interference information to forward the particular resource unit for use by a second shared access point in the wireless network, (see Figure 1 i.e., APs 102-2 and 102-3 may be shared APs as disclosed in Para [0025], see Figure 5 & Para’s [0024] i.e., the controller 130 is included within or integrated with an AP 102…For example each AP 102 mat include a controller 130, Para’s [0030-0036] i.e., the method 300 may be performed by a controller 130 (i.e., suggests method 300 may be performed by a “first shared AP”) which transmits interference information on one or more shared RUs to a “second shared AP”, & Para’s [0037-0040] i.e., the method 400 may be performed by an AP 102 (i.e., suggests method 400 may also be performed by a shared AP)…at block 404 the AP (i.e., may be a shared AP) may receive the interference information on one or more shared RUs from another or second shared AP)
and wirelessly transmitting the interference information of the shared RU to the second shared access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point (see Para’s [0031], [0036], & [0038-0040]).
(Desai suggests the interference information of the one or more shared RUs may be used to optimize the allocation of shared RUs among the muli-AP coordination group (MAPC) for mitigating the interference (see Para’s [0017-0019] & [0039-0040])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger frame including the particular resource unit (i.e., interfered RU) transmitted by the first shared AP as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, and further in view of Dakshinkar to be transmitted to the second shared access point based on the teachings of Desai who discloses a first shared AP wirelessly transmitting interference information of a shared RU to a second shared access point to forward the particular resource unit for use by the second shared access point, because the motivation lies in Desai that the interference information of the one or more shared RUs may be used to optimize the allocation of shared RUs among the muli-AP coordination group (MAPC) for mitigating the interference.
Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944), further in view of Dakshinkar et al. US (2022/0132331), and further in view of Desai et al. US (2024/0357648) as applied to claims 8 and 22 above, further in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687), and further in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886).
Regarding Claims 9 and 23, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, and further in view of Desai discloses the method and wireless device of claims 8 and 22 including wherein the second trigger frame includes an indication of the interfered resource unit (Shen see Para [0061]), but does not disclose wherein the second trigger frame comprises an identifier of the sharing access point and an allocation duration value. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687).
Lopez discloses wherein the second trigger frame comprises an identifier of the sharing access point and an allocation duration value (see Para’s [0048-0049] i.e., AP2 decides to participate in the sharing of the TXOP and thus responds by sending a request (Req) frame to the TXOP owner such as AP1 suggests the request includes an identification or identifier of the sharing AP, [0053] i.e., an AP transmitting a request frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) in response to a TX indication frame (i.e., “first trigger frame”) from the TXOP owner, e.g., like AP2 in the examples of Figs. 5 and 6, may set the duration field (i.e., “allocation duration value”) in the request frame).
(Lopez suggests the AP2 sets the duration field in the request frame in such a way that it protects the remaining duration of the shared TXOP (see Para’s [0048-0049 & [0053])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger frame such as the second response frame from the second shared AP including the indication of the interfered resource unit as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, and further in view of Desai to be implemented as the second trigger response frame disclosed in Lopez who discloses wherein the second trigger frame comprises an identifier of the sharing access point and an allocation duration value, because the motivation lies in Lopez that the AP2 sets the duration field in the request frame in such a way that it protects the remaining duration of the shared TXOP.
The combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, and further in view of Lopez does not explicitly disclose the second trigger frame comprises the identifier of the sharing access point. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886).
Wang discloses a second trigger response frame comprises the identifier of the sharing access point (see Para’s [0120] i.e., sharing AP and shared AP, [0152] i.e., the requesting AP may be a coordinating AP (i.e., “sharing AP”) which transmits a MAPS setup request frame (i.e., “first trigger”)…Once an AP receives a MAPS setup request frame, the AP may respond with a MAPS setup response frame which may include one or more MAPS operating parameters such as MAPS ID, & [0131] i.e., the MAPS ID may be implemented as the MAC address of the coordinating AP (i.e., “sharing AP”)).
(Wang suggests the MAPS setup response may include one or more MAPS operating parameters such as RUs during any coordinated MAPS transmissions for efficiently managing a shared TXOP, (see Para’s [0120], [0144], & [0152])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger response frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, and further in view of Lopez to comprise the identifier of the sharing access point included in the second trigger response frame sent from a shared access point to a sharing access point as disclosed in Wang, because the motivation lies in Wang that the MAPS setup response may include one or more MAPS operating parameters such as RUs during any coordinated MAPS transmissions for efficiently managing a shared TXOP.
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944), further in view of Dakshinkar et al. US (2022/0132331), further in view of Desai et al. US (2024/0357648), further in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687), and further in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886) as applied to claims 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Lim et al. US (2024/0349094).
Regarding Claims 10 and 24, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang discloses the method and wireless device of claims 9 and 23, including the first trigger frame comprising a user information subfield including the identifier of the access point, indication of resource unit information, and the allocation duration value which are part of the user information field (Sun, see Fig. 6 i.e. use info field 605 & Para’s [0092-0093] i.e., For example, the user info field 605 may include various subfields including an AID subfield 610, an RU allocation subfield 615, an allocation duration subfield 620…The RU allocation subfield 615 may indicate one or more RUs of the portion of the TXOP allocated to the AP), but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the second trigger frame comprises the user information subfield; and wherein the identifier of the sharing access point, the indication of the interfered resource unit, and the allocation duration value are part of the user information subfield. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Lim et al. US (2024/0349094).
Lim discloses a second trigger frame response may use the same format as the format used for a first trigger frame that is transmitted and/or received (see Para’s [0240] i.e., the trigger frame may include user information list fields in the frame body, [0248-0249] & [0253] i.e., the TB PPDU transmitting the sensing response frame (i.e., “second trigger frame”) may be transmitted using the same PPDU format as the PPDU format in which the sensing polling frame (or sensing trigger frame (i.e., “first trigger frame”)) is transmitted).
(Lim suggests the first trigger frame and second trigger frame response are communicated between an initiator and responder is for performing a sensing operation in order to determine if the medium is idle in order to successfully perform transmission through the corresponding medium, (See Para’s [0084] & [0248-0253])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second trigger frame response as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang to use the same format as the format used for the first trigger frame as disclosed in the teachings of Lim, which results in the second trigger frame comprising the user information subfield including the identifier of the sharing access point, the indication of the interfered resource unit, and the allocation duration value, because the motivation lies in Lim that the first trigger frame and second trigger frame response are communicated between an initiator and responder for performing a sensing operation in order to determine if the medium is idle in order to successfully perform transmission through the corresponding medium.
Claims 11, 13, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944), further in view of Dakshinkar et al. US (2022/0132331), further in view of Desai et al. US (2024/0357648), further in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687), and further in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886) as applied to claims 9 and 23 above, further in view of Park US (2021/0360525), and further in view of Nayak et al. US (2023/0073868).
Regarding Claims 11 and 25, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang discloses the method and wireless device of claims 9 and 23, further comprising: determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame (Lopez, see Para [0053]), but does not disclose determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame based on all of: an allocation duration value of the first trigger frame, an aSIFStime value, and an expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Park US (2021/0360525).
Park discloses determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame (see claim 1 i.e., transmitting to the AP, the HE TB PPDU (i.e., “second trigger frame”) in response to the received trigger frame & Para [0007] i.e., response PPDU) based on all of: an allocation duration value of the first trigger frame, (see claim 1 i.e., wherein the HE TB PPDU includes a second duration field, wherein a value of the second duration field is set based on a value obtained from the first duration field of the trigger frame (i.e., “allocation duration value of the first trigger frame”) minus a SIFS and a duration of the HE TB PPDU & Para’s [0200-0201])
an aSIFS time value, (see claim 1 i.e., wherein the HE TB PPDU includes a second duration field, wherein a value of the second duration field is set based on a value obtained from the first duration field of the trigger frame minus a SIFS (i.e., “aSIFS time value”) and a duration of the HE TB PPDU & Para’s [0200-0201])
and an expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame (see claim 1 i.e., wherein the HE TB PPDU includes a second duration field, wherein a value of the second duration field is set based on a value obtained from the first duration field of the trigger frame minus a SIFS and a duration of the HE TB PPDU (i.e., “expected duration value”) & Para’s [0200-0201])
(Park suggests the value of the duration field in the HE TB PPDU response is determined for indicating the remaining duration of the TXOP to the AP, (see Para’s [0115] & Para’s [0200-0201])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang to be determined based on all of an allocation duration value of the first trigger frame, an aSIFStime value, and an expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame as disclosed in the teachings of Park, because the motivation lies in Park that the value of the duration field in the HE TB PPDU response is determined for indicating the remaining duration of the TXOP to the AP.
While Sun discloses the shared AP transmits a clear-to-send frame to the sharing AP in response to the received trigger frame 430 (see Fig. 4 i.e., CTS frame 435 & Para [0080]), the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Park does not disclose determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame is further based on a duration value for transmitting a clear-to-send frame. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Nayak et al. US (2023/0073868).
Nayak discloses a receiver determines a value of a duration field of a trigger response frame based on using the value in the duration field of a received RTS frame and subtracts from it the time to transmit a CTS frame + one SIFS (see Para [0096])
(Nayak suggests the duration field value is used for reserving the medium for data transmission between the sender and the receiver and for reducing collisions due to hidden terminal scenario, (see Para [0096])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the determined allocation duration value of the second trigger frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang, and further in view of Park to be further based on a duration value for transmitting a clear-to-send frame used for determining a value of a duration field as disclosed in Nayak, because the motivation lies in Nayak that the duration field value is used for reserving the medium for data transmission between the sender and the receiver and for reducing collisions due to hidden terminal scenario.
Regarding Claims 13 and 27, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang discloses the method of claims 11 and 25, but does not disclose further comprising: determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame both: (b) the expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame plus the aSIFStime value. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Park US (2021/0360525).
Park discloses determining the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame (see claim 1 i.e., transmitting to the AP, the HE TB PPDU (i.e., “second trigger frame”) in response to the received trigger frame & Para [0007] i.e., response PPDU) based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame: (b) the expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame plus the aSIFStime value (see claim 1 i.e., wherein the HE TB PPDU includes a second duration field, wherein a value of the second duration field is set based on a value obtained from the first duration field of the trigger frame (i.e., “allocation duration value of the first trigger frame”) minus a SIFS (i.e., “aSIFS value”) and a duration of the HE TB PPDU (i.e., “expected duration value”) & Para’s [0200-0201])
(Park suggests the value of the duration field in the HE TB PPDU response is determined for indicating the remaining duration of the TXOP to the AP, (see Para’s [0115] & Para’s [0200-0201])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang to be determined based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame: (b) the expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame plus the aSIFStime value as disclosed in the teachings of Park, because the motivation lies in Park that the value of the duration field in the HE TB PPDU response is determined for indicating the remaining duration of the TXOP to the AP.
While Sun discloses the shared AP transmits a clear-to-send frame to the sharing AP in response to the received trigger frame 430 (see Fig. 4 i.e., CTS frame 435 & Para [0080]), the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Park does not disclose the allocation duration value determined for the second trigger frame is further based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame (a) the duration value for transmitting the clear-to-send frame plus the aSIFStime value. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Nayak et al. US (2023/0073868).
Nayak discloses a receiver determines a value of a duration field of a trigger response frame based on using the value in the duration field of a received RTS frame (i.e., “first trigger frame”) and subtracts from it the time to transmit a CTS frame + one SIFS (see Para [0096])
(Nayak suggests the duration field value is used for reserving the medium for data transmission between the sender and the receiver and for reducing collisions due to hidden terminal scenario, (see Para [0096])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the allocation duration value of the second trigger frame as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Dakshinkar, further in view of Desai, further in view of Lopez, and further in view of Wang, and further in view of Park to be further determined based on subtracting from the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame (a) the duration value for transmitting the clear-to-send frame plus the aSIFStime as disclosed in the teachings of Nayak, because the motivation lies in Nayak that the duration field value is used for reserving the medium for data transmission between the sender and the receiver and for reducing collisions due to hidden terminal scenario.
Claims 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US (2024/0224259) in view of Shen et al. US (2023/0224944), further in view of Dakshinkar et al. US (2022/0132331), further in view of Desai et al. US (2024/0357648), further in view of Lopez et al. US (2023/0087687), further in view of Wang et al. US (2023/0319886), further in view of Park US (2021/0360525), and further in view of Nayak et al. US (2023/0073868) as applied to claims 11 and 25 above, and further in view of Ong et al. US (2012/0182886).
Regarding Claims 12 and 26, the combination of Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, further in view of Park, and further in view of Nayak discloses the method and wireless device of claims 11 and 25, including the allocation duration value of the first trigger frame (Park, see Para [0201]), the duration value for transmitting the clear-to-send frame (Nayak, see Para [0096]), the aSIFStime value (Park, see Para [0201]), and the expected duration value for transmitting the second trigger frame (Park, see Para [0201]) and a memory buffer at the shared access point (see Fig. 18, memory 1830 & Para [0520]), but does not disclose the values are each stored in the memory buffer. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Ong et al. US (2012/0182886).
Ong discloses TXOP parameter values may be stored in a memory buffer of a device (see Para [0042] i.e., the device 10 may have received and stored specific TXOP limit parameter sets earlier, and the device 10 may define the TXOP limit values on the basis of the parameter values retrieved in memory)
(Ong suggests the TXOP parameter values are stored and retrieved from the memory by the device for defining the TXOP limit value (see Para’s [0028-0029] & [0042])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the values used for determining the allocation duration value as disclosed in Sun in view of Shen, further in view of Lopez, further in view of Wang, further in view of Park, and further in view of Nayak to be stored in the memory buffer of the shared access point based on the teachings of Ong who discloses TXOP parameter values may be stored in a memory buffer of a device, because the motivation lies in Ong that the TXOP parameter values are stored and retrieved from the memory by the device for defining the TXOP limit value indicating the duration which the device is allowed to transmit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights