DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0264566 (hereinafter Chu).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses an apparatus of a non-access point station (STA1) configured for transmission opportunity (TXOP) sharing operations in a wireless local area network (WLAN) (disclosed is a non-AP station (STA) in an 802.11 wireless network, according to [0044], whereby such a station, STA1, may be a TXOP owner that participates in TXOP sharing, according to [0115]), the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry (the STA comprises a processor, according to [0050]); and
memory (the STA comprises a memory, according to [0120]),
wherein for the TXOP sharing operations, the processing circuitry is to configure the STA1 to allocate time in a TXOP obtained by the STA1 to one of an access point station (AP) and another non-AP STA (STA2) using a Multi-User Request-To-Send Transmission TXOP sharing (MU-RTS TXS) frame subvariant (STA1 transmits an MU-RTS TXS frame to another station, STA2, in order to allocate TXOP time for STA2 [“to one of … another non-AP STA (STA2)”], according to [0115]).
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions for execution by the processing circuity of the non-access point station (STA1) (a non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions that are executed by a processor to perform the operations of the invention, according to [0120]-[0123]) that is recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Chu discloses an apparatus of an access point station (AP) configured for operating in a wireless local area network (WLAN) (disclosed is an access point (AP) in an 802.11 wireless network, according to [0044]), the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry (the AP comprises a processor, according to [0048]); and
memory (the AP comprises a memory, according to [0120]),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to decode a Multi-User Request-To-Send Transmission Opportunity sharing (MU-RTS TXS) frame subvariant received from a non-AP station (STA1) for transmission opportunity (TXOP) sharing operations, the MU-RTS TXS frame indicating that the STA1 is allocating time in a TXOP obtained by the STA1 to either of AP or another non-AP STA (STA2) (a STA1 uses an MU-RTS TXS frame to allocate TXOP time, whereby this TXOP time may be allocated to the AP, according to [0115]-[0116]).
Regarding claim 2, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 12, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Seok et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0219228 (hereinafter Seok).
Regarding claim 6, Chu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Chu discloses that for the TXOP sharing operations when the STA1 is associated with the AP, during the TXOP, the processing circuitry is configured to: encode data for transmission to the AP, the data including a time allocation that allocates a portion of the TXOP (STA1 allocates part of its TXOP to the AP, according to [0116]).
Chu does not expressly disclose that the data for transmission to the AP is for forwarding by the AP to the STA2, the data destined for the STA2.
Seok discloses that the data for transmission to the AP is for forwarding by the AP to the STA2, the data destined for the STA2 (an AP relays data from a first STA to a second STA, according to [0053], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chu with Seok such that the data for transmission to the AP is for forwarding by the AP to the STA2, the data destined for the STA2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate setting up a direction link between STAs (Seok: [0053]).
Claim 16 does not differ substantively from claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3-5, 7-10, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights