DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 8/7/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of 63/528,844, filed 7/25/2023. The assignee of record is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The listed inventor(s) is/are: Shafin, Rubayet; Ng, Boon Loong; Qi, Yue; Nayak, Peshal; Ratnam, Vishnu Vardhan; Jen, Elliot.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US 20100271995 A1, published 10/28/2010; hereinafter Seo) in view of Hu (US 20220132428 A1, published 4/28/2022).
For Claim 1, Seo teaches a first peer station device (STA) comprising: a transceiver configured to communicate over peer-to-peer (P2P) links with one or more other peer STAs (Seo ¶ 0040-0041); and
a processor operably connected to the transceiver and configured to determine parameters of a P2P power saving schedule, wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit, (Seo ¶ 0066-0068, Claim 14, and Fig. 8 and related description, please see screenshot of Seo Fig. 8 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Seo does not explicitly teach wherein the transceiver is further configured to advertise the parameters of the P2P power saving schedule in a beacon frame, wherein the parameters of the P2P power saving schedule are indicated in the beacon frame as parameters of a broadcast target wait time (TWT) schedule.
However, Hu teaches advertise the parameters of the P2P power saving schedule in a beacon frame (Hu ¶ 0055 the computing device 110A may transmit a beacon frame periodically to announce/advertise a presence of a wireless link 125A between the computing device 110A and the HWD 150A and can coordinate the communication between the computing device 110A and the HWD 150A. Hu ¶ 0072 a device (such as AP 105) may schedule TWT SPs with other devices (e.g., computing devices 110 and/or HWDs 150) and may share schedule information in beacon frames and/or probe response frames. Sharing schedule information using bTWT may reduce overhead (e.g., negotiation overhead) as compared to the overhead used when sharing information using iTWT), wherein the parameters of the P2P power saving schedule are indicated in the beacon frame as parameters of a broadcast target wait time (TWT) schedule (Hu ¶ 0079 TWT Parameter Set field 702 is the TWT Parameter Set field used for iTWT signaling, while TWT Parameter Set field 704 is the TWT Parameter Set field used for bTWT signaling. Both the bTWT Parameter Set Field and iTWT Parameter Set field may be transmitted in any direction (e.g., from AP 105 to computing device 110 and/or from computing device 110 to AP 105), and in some cases, between STAs (e.g., in P2P communications or configurations)
Please also see Hu ¶ 0072, 0077-0078, 0084 Figs. 5-9, thank you).
Hu and Seo are analogous art because they are both related to power management and wake-up scheduling.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the scheduling techniques of Hu with the system of Seo because it may reduce overhead (e.g., negotiation overhead) as compared to the overhead used when sharing information using iTWT (Hu ¶ 0072).
For Claim 2, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein the parameters of the P2P power saving schedule include parameters for a P2P service period (SP) during which P2P communications are allowed according to the P2P power saving schedule (Seo ¶ 0068, 0072), and wherein the parameters for the P2P SP are indicated as parameters of a TWT SP of the broadcast TWT schedule (Hu ¶ 0072, 0077-0078, 0084).
For Claim 3, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein the first peer STA remains in an active state during P2P SPs of the P2P power saving schedule (Seo ¶ 0068, 0072).
For Claim 4, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein: the multiple other peer STAs are member STAs of the P2P power saving schedule, and the member STAs of the P2P power saving schedule remain in an active state during P2P SPs of the P2P power saving schedule (Seo ¶ 0068, 0072).
For Claim 5, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive, from at least one of the multiple other peer STAs, a request to obtain membership in the P2P power saving schedule, the processor is further configured determine to accept the request, and the transceiver is further configured to transmit, to the at least one of the multiple other peer STAs, a response indicating that the request is accepted (Seo ¶ 0015).
For Claim 6, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein: the multiple other peer STAs are member STAs of the P2P power saving schedule, and P2P communications between the first peer STA and the member STAs of the P2P power saving schedule are allowed during P2P SPs of the P2P power saving schedule (Seo ¶ 0062-0072).
For Claim 7, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein: the multiple other peer STAs are member STAs of the P2P power saving schedule, there is a P2P link between formed between at least two of the member STAs of the P2P power saving schedule, and P2P communications between the at least two member STAs are allowed during P2P SPs of the P2P power saving schedule (Seo ¶ 0062-0072).
For Claim 8, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to participate in a distributed algorithm to determine whether the first peer STA or one of the multiple other peer STAs determines the parameters of the P2P power saving schedule, and the multiple other peer STAs also participate in the distributed algorithm (Seo ¶ 0042).
For Claim 9, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein: the first peer STA is a non-access point (AP) STA, the multiple other peer STAs are non-AP STAs, the first peer STA and the multiple other peer STAs are associated with an AP STA, and one of the first peer STA or the multiple other peer STAs transmits, to the AP STA, a message including information on the parameters of the P2P power saving schedule and information identifying member STAs of the P2P power saving schedule (Seo ¶ 0037, 0067).
For Claim 10, Seo-Hu teaches the first peer STA of claim 1, wherein the P2P link is one of a tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) link, a WI-FI AWARE neighbor awareness networking (NAN) link, or a WI-FI DIRECT link (Seo Claim 14).
For Claim(s) 11, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 12, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 13, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 14, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 15, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 16, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 17, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 18, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 8 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 19, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 9 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 20, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 10 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights