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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0174079 A1) in view of Krzymien et al. (US 2015/0163824 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wang teaches a device for spatial reuse included in a transmission node of a wireless network, (paragraph [0031] “FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of an initiating device 201 and a responding device 211 in a wireless network 200 in accordance with one novel aspect”) and (paragraph [0032] “The function modules, when executed by processors 203 and 213 (via program instructions 209 and 219 contained in memory 202 and 212), interwork with each other to allow the wireless devices to perform channel access with spatial re-use”; also Fig. 2).
the device comprising: a memory; (paragraph [0031] “Initiating device 201 comprises memory 202, a processor 203, a control and configuration module 204, a power controller 205, an EDCA module 206, a spatial re-use detection module 207, and a transceiver 208 coupled to antenna 209”; also Fig. 2)
and a processor configured to execute at least some of operations based on a program stored in the memory, (paragraph [0032] “The different modules are functional modules that can be implemented in software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof. The function modules, when executed by processors 203 and 213 (via program instructions 209 and 219 contained in memory 202 and 212), interwork with each other to allow the wireless devices to perform channel access with spatial re-use”)
wherein the processor calculates concurrent transmission power that is a power for transmitting a signal concurrently with an occupant transmission node, (paragraph [0032] “the power control module determines and controls a transmit (TX) power level (or TX spectral power density) such that spatial re-use frame exchange 231 does not cause collision in the network”); (paragraph [0033] “STA1 and STA2 have gained a TXOP to access the wireless medium and have ongoing frame exchange between them. STA3 is trying to initiate a frame exchange with STA4 by exploiting spatial re-use of the wireless medium”); and (paragraph [0034] “Once pathloss is determined, STA3 can then determine its own TX power level (TPC) based on the following equations, and STA3 should select the lower TX power level between TPC1 and TPC2 such that STA3 would not cause interference to both STA1 and STA2”)
which is occupying a channel and transmitting a signal with reference transmission power, (paragraph [0033] “STA1 and STA2 have gained a TXOP to access the wireless medium and have ongoing frame exchange between them”); (paragraph [0041] “The basic assumptions here are 1) the received interference level is at the CCA of the legacy STA, and 2) the transmit power (i.e., TX-PWR Ref) is the same for all STAs, with a margin to accommodate the TX power level differences”). Thus, Wang’s ongoing STA1/STA2 transmissions occupy the wireless medium and are modeled using the reference transmission power TX-PWR Ref, with a margin accommodating transmit-power difference.
adjusts and sets a clear channel assessment (CCA) threshold in accordance with the concurrent transmission power, (paragraph [0061] “The spatial reuse STA reduces its transmitting power TXPWR by Δ, and raises its adaptive CCA threshold CCAThreshold by Δ, while Δ=RefPWRLevel−TXPWR”; also Fig. 13)
and determines whether to perform concurrent transmission in accordance with the CCA threshold and an intensity of the signal transmitted by the occupant transmission node (paragraph [0033] “STA3 performs spatial re-use detection and observes the on-going frame exchange in the wireless medium to confirm whether STA3 is allowed to start a spatial re-use frame exchange” and “[i]f STA3 has sufficient link margin, it then raises its CCA level based on the observed signal (power density) level from STA1 and STA2”); (paragraph [0042] “Suppose that STA3, intending to access the medium, receives a signal from STA1 with a power level RX-PWRSTA1 exceeding CCA and/or receives a signal from STA2 with a power level RX-PWRSTA2 exceeding CCA,” “STA3 is then allowed to access the medium in concurrent with STA1’s transmission,” and “[i]f the adjusted transmit power is not enough to close the link, then STA3 abandons the transmission”).
Wang does not expressly teach calculating the concurrent transmission power on the basis of a density of nearby access points (APs).
Krzymien teaches determining a CCA threshold based on a density of nearby access points (APs), (paragraph [0024] “Examples of information elements include the density of access points”); and (paragraph [0027] “the threshold is calculated in accordance with the density of APs,” “[t]he AP density may be inferred by the communications distance between station 104 and its associated AP, AP 102,” “[a]lternatively, the AP density may be estimated based on the number of APs that station is able to hear,” and “[i]n one example, the CCA threshold is higher when there is a high density of APs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Krzymien’s AP-density-based CCA-threshold determination to Wang’s coupled CCA-threshold and transmit-power procedure, thereby determining the corresponding concurrent transmission power based on nearby-AP density. Krzymien teaches that this density-based CCA adjustment improves throughput in dense wireless-network deployments (paragraphs [0027] and [0044]). The modification would have predictably improved spatial reuse and throughput while controlling interference.
Regarding Claim 4: Wang and Krzymien teach the device of Claim 1
Wang further teaches wherein, when a signal intensity transmitted by the occupant transmission node is the CCA threshold or less, the processor causes the transmission node to perform concurrent transmission,” in substance (paragraph [0042] discloses that STA3 receives signals from STA1 and STA2, raises its CCA level to max(RX-PWRSTA1, RX-PWRSTA2), and “is then allowed to access the medium in concurrent with STA1’s transmission” (see also Wang claim 2). Thus, Wang teaches concurrent transmission when the occupant-signal intensity is equal to or less than the adjusted CCA threshold.
Wang does not expressly state wherein, when a signal intensity transmitted by the occupant transmission node is the CCA threshold or less, the processor causes the transmission node to perform concurrent transmission, as a general threshold-condition rule.
Krzymien teaches the threshold-condition portion of when a signal intensity transmitted by the occupant transmission node is the CCA threshold or less, the processor causes the transmission node to perform concurrent transmission (paragraph [0043] discloses that “station 104 compares the CCA threshold to the energy level in the channel” and transmits when “the level in the channel is less than or equal to the CCA threshold,” but waits when the energy level exceeds the CCA threshold (also Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Krzymien’s CCA-threshold comparison to Wang’s spatial-reuse procedure, thereby causing Wang’s transmission node to perform concurrent transmission when the occupant-signal intensity is equal to or less than the adjusted CCA threshold. Krzymien teaches that CSMA/CA avoids collisions by permitting transmission when the channel is determined to be idle and requiring the station to wait when the channel energy exceeds the CCA threshold (paragraphs [0002] and [0043]). The modification would therefore have predictably controlled Wang’s concurrent spatial-reuse transmission according to the sensed channel condition.
Regarding Claim 9 Wang and Krzymien teach the device of Claim 1
Wang teaches wherein the transmission node is implemented as a device for occupying the channel using a distribution coordination function (DCF) of a carrier sense multiple access/collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) scheme based on Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11, (paragraph [0003] discloses that “IEEE 802.11 is a set of media access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specification for implementing wireless local area network (WLAN) communication, called WiFi.”and (paragraph [0031] discloses that “Initiating device 201 comprises memory 202, a processor 203, a control and configuration module 204, a power controller 205, an EDCA module 206, a spatial re-use detection module 207, and a transceiver 208 coupled to antenna 209.” Also (paragraph [0005] further discloses that “an enhanced distributed channel access protocol (EDCA) is used in IEEE 802.11ac as a channel contention procedure for wireless devices to gain access to the shared wireless medium, e.g., to obtain a transmitting opportunity (TXOP) for transmitting radio signals onto the shared wireless medium,” and identifies “[t]he simple CSMA/CA with random back-off contention scheme.”).
Wang does not expressly teach using a distribution coordination function (DCF) to occupy the channel.
Krzymien teaches using a distribution coordination function (DCF) of a carrier sense multiple access/collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) scheme (paragraph [0030] discloses that “[d]istributed coordination function (DCF) allows for automatic medium sharing between compatible PHY’s through the use of CSMA/CA and a random backoff time following a busy medium condition.”) and (paragraph [0035] further discloses that “[a] message is transmitted by station 104 when station 104 determines an idle channel” and that “[a] channel may be determined to be IDLE using the described above DCF mechanism.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Wang’s IEEE 802.11 CSMA/CA channel-access procedure using Krzymien’s DCF mechanism. Krzymien teaches that DCF uses CSMA/CA and random backoff for automatic medium sharing and permits transmission upon determining that the channel is idle (paragraphs [0030] and [0035]). The modification would therefore have predictably provided a known IEEE 802.11 mechanism for Wang’s transmission node to gain access to and occupy the shared wireless channel.
Regarding Claims 10, 13, and 18 are method claims corresponding to device Claims 1, 4, and 9, respectively, and are rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth above regarding Claims 1, 4, and 9. Wang teaches that the disclosed spatial-reuse operations are performed by processors executing program instructions stored in memory (paragraph [0032]). Accordingly, the recitation of the corresponding subject matter as method operations does not patentably distinguish Claims 10, 13, and 18 from Claims 1, 4, and 9.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0174079 A1) in view of Krzymien et al. (US 2015/0163824 A1), and further in view of Cao et al., “Beamsteering-Aware Power Allocation for Cache-Assisted NOMA mmWave Vehicular Networks,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 12, article 2653 (2023).
Regarding Claim 2: Wang and Krzymien teach the device of Claim 1
Wang teaches wherein the processor calculates and acquires the concurrent transmission power, in substance (paragraph [0046] discloses that “[t]he spatial observation allows STA3 to form a decision of what transmit power level to use during spatial re-use.)” and (Paragraph [0047] further discloses that “STA3 determines a first transmit power that would not cause interference to STA1, a second transmit power that would not cause interference to STA2, and then selects the lower transmit power so that the spatial re-use frame exchange would not interfere both STA1 and STA2.”) Wang’s processor executes the power-control and spatial-reuse modules that perform these operations, as discussed for Claim 1.
Wang and Krzymien does not expressly teach for maximizing a product of a transmission success possibility of the occupant transmission node and a concurrent transmission success possibility which is a transmission success possibility of concurrent transmission.
Cao teaches for maximizing a product of a transmission success possibility of the occupant transmission node and a concurrent transmission success possibility which is a transmission success possibility of concurrent transmission, in combination with Wang. Cao discloses simultaneously transmitting two signals using a power-allocation factor α that allocates power portions αP and (1−α)P to the signals (pages 3 and 6–7, Equations (7)–(10); see also Fig. 1). Cao further discloses “maximizing the product of their individual decoding success probabilities” and formulates the power-allocation objective as maximizing that product over α (page 2; page 11, Equation (48); see also pages 13–15, Equations (56)–(61)). In the proposed combination, Cao’s first decoding-success probability corresponds to the transmission-success possibility of Wang’s occupant transmission, and Cao’s second decoding-success probability corresponds to the transmission-success possibility of Wang’s concurrent spatial-reuse transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Cao’s product-based power-allocation optimization when calculating and acquiring Wang’s concurrent transmission power, thereby maximizing the product of the transmission-success possibilities of Wang’s occupant and concurrent transmissions. Cao teaches using the product of the individual decoding-success probabilities to obtain an optimal power allocation while maintaining fairness between simultaneous transmissions (page 2; page 11, Equation (48)). The modification would therefore have predictably optimized Wang’s concurrent transmission power according to the joint success possibilities of the occupant and concurrent transmissions.
Claim 11 is the method claim corresponding to device Claim 2 and is rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth above regarding Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0174079 A1) in view of Krzymien et al. (US 2015/0163824 A1), and further in view of Ramasamy et al. (US 2012/0083264 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: Wang and Krzymien teach the device of Claim 1
Wang teaches the processor causes the transmission node to not perform concurrent transmission by suspending transmission, in substance (paragraph [0033] discloses that “[i]f there is not sufficient margin to close the link, STA3 abandons its attempt for spatial re-use based on current spatial detection.)”; (Paragraph [0042] similarly discloses that “[i]f the adjusted transmit power is not enough to close the link, then STA3 abandons the transmission.”) and (paragraph [0062] further discloses that “STA3 should abandon the spatial re-use attempt” and that “the responding station sends a response to inhibit the spatial re-use attempt by STA3.”).
Wang and Krzymien do not expressly teach wherein, when the concurrent transmission power is not within a standard transmission power range, the processor causes the transmission node to not perform concurrent transmission by suspending transmission.
Ramasamy teaches the missing condition that the transmission is suspended when the concurrent transmission power is not within a standard transmission power range, (paragraph [0011] discloses estimating an uplink transmit-power level for first and second simultaneous connections and, when the estimated power equals or exceeds a first threshold, selecting a first transmission format that transmits a non-zero amount of frames over the first connection and zero frames over the second connection; when the estimated power equals or exceeds a second threshold and falls below the first threshold, selecting a second transmission format that transmits a non-zero amount of frames over both connections (see also claims 9 and 10). Paragraphs [0068]–[0069] further disclose that, “[w]hen transmitting at or near a maximum transmit power level,” the device may select a transmission format “that uses voice only with no data transmission,” while “data transmissions can be delayed until conditions improve so that transmit power levels can be lowered.” Paragraph [0073] discloses that, when the monitored uplink transmit power exceeds the second threshold, “the UE 202 can select the TFCI/E-TFCI such that the uplink transmit data rate is zero” (see also Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Ramasamy’s threshold-defined transmit-power control to Wang’s concurrent transmission power, thereby suspending Wang’s concurrent transmission when its power is outside the permitted range. Ramasamy teaches delaying the second transmission until conditions improve and transmit-power levels can be lowered (paragraphs [0068]–[0069]). The modification would therefore have predictably maintained the first transmission while preventing the concurrent transmission from operating outside the permitted power range.
Regarding Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to device Claim 3 and is rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth above regarding Claim 3.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0174079 A1) in view of Krzymien et al. (US 2015/0163824 A1), and further in view of Seok et al. (US 2017/0289987 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Wang and Krzymien teach the device of Claim 1
Wang teaches determining whether the occupant transmission node is an internal basic service set (BSS) node constituting a BSS with the transmission node (paragraph [0039] discloses that “STA3 needs to identify whether the STA1/STA2 link is an inter-BSS link or an intra-BSS link” using BSS color or transmitter and receiver identifiers.)
a reference CCA threshold (paragraph [0060] discloses that “a reference transmit power level TX-PWR Ref and the baseline CCA level at CCA baseline are defined.”) and (paragraph [0061] further discloses determining the adaptive CCA threshold based on the “baseline CCA level (Baseline CCA)” and the reference transmit-power level.) Wang’s baseline CCA level corresponds to the claimed reference CCA threshold because it is the baseline from which the adaptive CCA threshold is adjusted.
Wang and Krzymien do not expressly teach wherein, when the occupant transmission node is an internal basic service set (BSS) node constituting a BSS with the transmission node, the processor sets a reference CCA threshold as the CCA threshold, particularly selecting the baseline CCA threshold in response to determining that the occupant transmission node belongs to the same BSS.
Seok teaches wherein, when the occupant transmission node is an internal basic service set (BSS) node constituting a BSS with the transmission node, the processor sets a reference CCA threshold as the CCA threshold (paragraph [0256] discloses that “a PPDU or frame transmitted from the same BSS as a BSS associated with an STA may be referred to as an intra-BSS PPDU or frame.”) and (paragraph [0257] discloses that “a CCA operation based on a received PPDU may be different depending on whether the PPDU is from the same BSS or not.” ) Claim 1 further recites “processing the first PPDU using a second type of CCA threshold when the first PPDU is determined to be transmitted from the same BSS,” wherein “the first type of CCA threshold is greater than the second type of CCA threshold.” Seok’s second CCA threshold used for a same-BSS transmission corresponds to Wang’s baseline or reference CCA threshold, while Seok’s greater first CCA threshold used for a different-BSS transmission corresponds to Wang’s increased adaptive CCA threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Seok’s same-BSS/different-BSS CCA-threshold selection to Wang’s BSS-identification and adaptive-CCA procedure, thereby setting Wang’s baseline or reference CCA threshold when the occupant transmission node belongs to the same BSS. Seok teaches selecting different CCA thresholds according to whether a received transmission is from the same BSS or a different BSS (paragraphs [0256]–[0258].
Regarding Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to device Claim 5 and is rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth above regarding Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0174079 A1) in view of Krzymien et al. (US 2015/0163824 A1), and further in view of Sung et al. (US 2015/0032868 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: Wang and Krzymien teach the device of Claim 1
Wang teaches wherein, when the occupant transmission node is an external basic service set (BSS) node constituting a different BSS than the transmission node (paragraph [0039] discloses that “STA3 needs to identify whether the STA1/STA2 link is an inter-BSS link or an intra-BSS link” and that STA1 and STA2 signal their BSS color or transmitter and receiver identifiers to permit that determination. Wang’s STA1 or STA2 corresponds to the occupant transmission node, and STA3 corresponds to the transmission node.).
Wang and Krzymien do not expressly teach “the processor sets the CCA threshold such that a sum of the concurrent transmission power and a minimum CCA threshold equals a sum of the reference transmission power and the CCA threshold.
Sung supplies the mathematical relationship recited in this limitation (paragraph [0044] discloses that the control module acquires the minimum CCA threshold value according to the present transmission power, maximum transmission power, and default CCA threshold value of the access point. Paragraph [0045] provides the following relationship: CCA_{\min}=CCA_{\mathrm{default}}+P_{\max}-P_{\mathrm{present}}, which is algebraically equivalent to: P_{\mathrm{present}}+CCA_{\min}
=
P_{\max}+CCA_{\mathrm{default}}. Sung’s present transmission power, minimum CCA threshold value, maximum transmission power, and default CCA threshold value correspond, respectively, to the claimed concurrent transmission power, minimum CCA threshold, reference transmission power, and CCA threshold. Sung does not expressly teach applying this mathematical relationship specifically “when the occupant transmission node is an external basic service set (BSS) node constituting a different BSS than the transmission node”; Wang supplies that external-BSS context.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Sung’s power/CCA relationship when setting Wang’s CCA threshold for an external-BSS occupant transmission. Paragraph [0043] teaches comparing the present CCA threshold with the minimum CCA threshold and adjusting the present CCA threshold to a suitable value to avoid abandoning data transmission because of interference without excessively increasing the CCA threshold, which could increase the transmission-error rate and reduce throughput. Applying Sung’s known relationship to Wang’s external-BSS spatial-reuse procedure would therefore have predictably coordinated the concurrent transmission power and CCA threshold while controlling inter-BSS interference.
Regarding Claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to device Claim 6 and is rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth above regarding Claim 6.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0174079 A1) in view of Krzymien et al. (US 2015/0163824 A1), and further in view of Reumerman et al. (US 2012/0106362 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Wang and Krzymien teach the device of Claim 1
Krzymien teaches wherein the processor checks the density of the nearby Aps (paragraph [0024] discloses that “[t]he message may contain an information element” and that examples of such information elements include “the density of access points.”) And (paragraph [0027] further discloses that “the threshold is calculated in accordance with the density of APs” and that “[t]he AP density may be estimated based on the number of APs that station is able to hear.”) Thus, Krzymien teaches checking the density of nearby APs based on the identified or detected AP population.
Wang teaches acquiring basic service set (BSS) information (paragraph [0039] discloses that “STA3 needs to identify whether the STA1/STA2 link is an inter-BSS link or an intra-BSS link” and that STA1 and STA2 signal their BSS color or transmitter and receiver identifiers to permit that determination) and (paragraph [0039] further explains that BSS color is an indication of BSS ID. Paragraph [0046] discloses that STA3 observes the medium, updates its database, and obtains the database information from signaled information, observed RSSIs, and BSS color. Wang’s acquired information identifying the BSS of a nearby station corresponds to the claimed BSS information.
Wang and Krzymien do not expressly teach wherein the processor checks the density of the nearby APs on the basis of basic service set (BSS) information which is periodically exchanged between the APs and acquired.
Reumerman teaches the periodically exchanged between the APs and acquired portion of basic service set (BSS) information which is periodically exchanged between the APs and acquired (paragraph [0030] discloses that “the access points are wireless stations themselves, communicating with each other” to provide services to their respective BSSs. Paragraph [0092] discloses an “exemplary beacon period access protocol” through which a mesh point acquires information identifying the beacon sender, the sender’s neighbors, and the neighbors of those neighbors from the BPOIE owner vector. Paragraph [0098] further discloses that, using the Beacon Period, a mesh point determines when a neighboring mesh point is transmitting its beacon. Thus, Reumerman teaches periodically exchanging and acquiring neighboring-AP information between APs. Reumerman does not expressly teach that this periodically exchanged information is the “basic service set (BSS) information” on the basis of which the processor “checks the density of the nearby APs.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Reumerman’s periodic AP-to-AP beacon exchanges to communicate and acquire the BSS and neighboring-AP information used by Wang and Krzymien. Krzymien checks AP density based on the number of APs a station can hear, Wang acquires BSS-identifying information and maintains a neighboring-node database, and Reumerman periodically exchanges and acquires information identifying neighboring APs. The modification would have predictably maintained updated BSS and neighboring-AP information as the basis for checking the density of nearby APs as the wireless environment changed.
Regarding Claim 8: Wang and Krzymien teach the device of Claim 1
Wang teaches wherein the processor determines whether the occupant transmission node is an internal basic service set (BSS) node included in the same BSS as the transmission node or an external BSS node included in a different BSS than the transmission node (paragraph [0031] discloses that the initiating device includes processor 203 and a spatial-reuse detection module and (paragraph [0032] discloses that the functional modules are executed by the processor to perform channel access with spatial reuse) also (paragraph [0039] discloses that “STA3 needs to identify whether the STA1/STA2 link is an inter-BSS link or an intra-BSS link.” paragraph [0053] further discloses the same-BSS alternative by describing an ongoing transmission “between a pair of STAs within its BSS.” Wang’s processor-based STA3 corresponds to the transmission node, and STA1 or STA2 corresponds to the occupant transmission node. Wang’s intra-BSS determination corresponds to determining that the occupant transmission node is an internal BSS node included in the same BSS, and Wang’s inter-BSS determination corresponds to determining that the occupant transmission node is an external BSS node included in a different BSS.
Wang teaches that the determination is made on the basis of BSS color information (paragraph [0039] discloses that, “[i]n order to do that, STA1 and STA2 should signal their BSS color, or TX IDs and RX IDs,” and explains that BSS color is an indication of BSS ID. Paragraph [0053] discloses that a transmission between stations within the same BSS has a “matching BSS color.” Thus, Wang teaches determining same-BSS or different-BSS status on the basis of BSS color information.
Further teaches BSS color information included in BSS information (paragraph [0010] discloses that the spatial-reuse information includes a BSS color identifying the BSS of an inter-BSS station. Wang’s spatial-reuse information containing BSS color corresponds to the claimed BSS information because the information identifies the associated BSS. also teaches that the BSS-color-containing information is “acquired.” Paragraph [0047] discloses that, during spatial detection, STA3 collects spatial-reuse information including BSS color. Paragraph [0046] further discloses that STA3 observes the medium, updates its database, and obtains the database information from signaled information, observed RSSIs, and BSS color.
Wang and Krzymien do not expressly teach the complete limitation BSS color information included in BSS information which is periodically exchanged between the APs and acquired.
Reumerman teaches the periodically exchanged between the APs and acquired portion of BSS information which is periodically exchanged between the APs and acquired (paragraph [0030] discloses that “the access points are wireless stations themselves, communicating with each other” to provide services to their respective BSSs. paragraph [0092] discloses an “exemplary beacon period access protocol” through which a mesh point acquires information identifying the beacon sender, the sender’s neighbors, and the neighbors of those neighbors from the BPOIE owner vector. Paragraph [0098] further discloses that, using the Beacon Period, a mesh point determines when a neighboring mesh point is transmitting its beacon. Thus, Reumerman teaches periodically exchanging and acquiring neighboring-AP information between APs.
Reumerman does not expressly teach that the periodically exchanged information contains BSS color information or that the information is used to determine whether the occupant transmission node is an internal BSS node included in the same BSS as the transmission node or an external BSS node included in a different BSS. Wang supplies the BSS-color content and the same-BSS/different-BSS determination, while Reumerman supplies the periodic AP-to-AP exchange and acquisition mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Wang’s BSS-color-containing information in Reumerman’s periodic AP-to-AP beacon and information-element exchanges. Wang’s processor acquires BSS color information and uses that information to determine whether an occupant transmission node belongs to the same BSS as the transmission node or a different BSS, while Reumerman periodically exchanges and acquires information identifying neighboring APs. The modification would have predictably maintained current BSS color information for reliably determining whether the occupant transmission node is an internal BSS node included in the same BSS or an external BSS node included in a different BSS.
Claims 16 and 17 are method claims corresponding to device Claims 7 and 8, respectively, and are rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth above regarding Claims 7 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights