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
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.
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 and 14-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0247439; Note also KR 1020230043766 (“766”), with translation, attached) in view of Sun, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0422764)
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Jang discloses a method performed by a wireless device operating as a sharing access point the method comprising a wireless device capable of functioning as a sharing access point in a first basic service, the wireless device comprising a radio frequency transceiver; a memory device; a set of one or more processors coupled to the memory device (Fig. 1; Note identical fig. 5 of 766) and a set of instructions stored in the memory and configured to cause the sharing access point to perform:
generating a control frame to facilitate allocation of a transmission opportunity held by the sharing access point to a shared access point, and wirelessly transmitting the control frame to facilitate allocation of the transmission opportunity held by the sharing access point to the shared access point (Mu-RTS TXS is transmitted allocating a TXS/TxOPs of the SAP/sharing access point with one or more DAP/scheduled/shared access points [fig. 13, “MU-RTS”, paragraph 0197; note also identical fig. 5 of 766 and discussion of operation of MU-RTS on pages 28-29 for allocation txop to multiple DAP])
wirelessly receiving a return transmission opportunity frame, wirelessly transmitted by the shared access point, facilitating return of a remaining portion of the transmission opportunity to the sharing access point; and (If the DAP/scheduled/shared access point is complete with its transmission but has remaining TXS/TxOPs, it returns the TXS/TxOPs to the SAP/sharing access point using a QoS Null [fig 13, “TXOP Return” and “QoS NULL”; note also paragraph 200; see also identical fig. 5 of 766 and discussion on pages 30-31].)
facilitating allocation of a portion of the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity to an alternative access point. (The remaining TXS/TxOPs [less the loss from the QoS Null, Triggering Frame and response transmission] [i.e. a portion of the remaining portion] are allocated to a different DAP/scheduled/shared access point (fig. 8, “Triggering Frame”, “Response”, paragraphs 0202-0206, ; see also identical fig. 5 of 766 and discussion on pages 30-31].)
Jang fails to disclose a first basic service set, the shared access point in a second basic service set that overlaps the first basic service set. In the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses a first basic service set, the shared access point in a second basic service set that overlaps the first basic service set. (Sun discloses that each base station is associated with a basic service set/BSSID including[paragraph 0028] including the shared and sharing APs, which overlap in range as they directly communicate [paragraph 0049-0056 – disclosing shared/sharing access points sharing TXOPs; note specifically fig 3B which has a very similar procedure to that of Jang by using CF-end for TXOP return].)
Therefore, since Sun discloses BSS, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the BSS of Sun with the system of Jiang by placing the shared and sharing access point in a respective first and second overlapping basic service set. The motive to combine is to conform with typical 802.11 access point basic service sets for compatibility.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Jang as previously modified by Sun fails to disclose resuming, during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing access point, wireless transmission of data buffered at the sharing access point. In the same field of endeavor, another portion of Sun discloses resuming, during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing access point, wireless transmission of data buffered at the sharing access point. (Sun discloses that recovered/returned TSOPs may be used by the sharing station itself for transmitting data to an attached station [note that buffering is inherent, as the frame needs to be temporarily held]).
Therefore, since Sun discloses recovered/unused TXOPs may also be used by the sharing access point for data transmission to an attached device, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the self use of Sun with the system of Jang as previously modified by Sun by using the recovered/unused/returned TXOP for transmission of buffered data to an attached device. The motive to combine is to improve throughput of the sharing access point.
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Jang discloses facilitating allocation of a portion of the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity to an alternative access point (The remaining TXS/TxOPs [less the loss from the QoS Null and Triggering Frame transmission] [i.e. a portion of the remaining portion] are allocated to a different DAP/scheduled/shared access point (fig. 8, “Triggering Frame”, “Response”, paragraphs 0202-0206, ; see also identical fig. 5 of 766 and discussion on pages 30-31].)
Regarding claims 16 and 22, Jang discloses a method performed by a wireless device operating as a shared access point the method comprising a wireless device capable of functioning as a shared access point, the wireless device comprising a radio frequency transceiver; a memory device; a set of one or more processors coupled to the memory device (Fig. 1; Note identical fig. 5 of 766) and a set of instructions stored in the memory and configured to cause the shared access point to perform:
receiving a control frame wirelessly transmitted by a sharing access point, the control frame wirelessly transmitted by the sharing access point to facilitate allocation of a transmission opportunity held by the sharing access point to the shared access point and wirelessly transmitting a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) during the transmission opportunity ; (Mu-RTS TXS is transmitted allocating a TXS/TxOPs of the SAP/sharing access point to one or more DAP/scheduled/shared access points, which receives it [fig. 13, “MU-RTS”, paragraph 0197; note also identical fig. 5 of 766 and discussion of operation of MU-RTS on pages 28-29 for allocation txop to multiple DAP] and sends a transmission during the TXOP [fig. 13, “DAP1’s BSS FE”; note also identical fig5 of 766].)
generating a return transmission opportunity frame to facilitate return of a remaining portion of the transmission opportunity to the sharing access point; and wirelessly transmitting the return transmission opportunity frame to return the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity to the sharing access point (If the DAP/scheduled/shared access point is complete with its transmission but has remaining TXS/TxOPs, it returns the TXS/TxOPs to the SAP/sharing access point using a generated and transmitted QoS Null [fig 13, “TXOP Return” and “QoS NULL”; note also paragraph 200; see also identical fig. 5 of 766 and discussion on pages 30-31].)
Jang fails to disclose a wireless device operating as a shared access point in a first basic service set or a sharing access point in a second basic service set that overlaps the first basic service set. In the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses a wireless device operating as a shared access point in a first basic service set or a sharing access point in a second basic service set that overlaps the first basic service set. (Sun discloses that each base station is associated with a basic service set/BSSID including[paragraph 0028] including the shared and sharing APs, which overlap in range as they directly communicate [paragraph 0049-0056 – disclosing shared/sharing access points sharing TXOPs; note specifically fig 3B which has a very similar procedure to that of Jang by using CF-end for TXOP return].)
Therefore, since Sun discloses BSS, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the BSS of Sun with the system of Jiang by placing the shared and sharing access point in a respective first and second overlapping basic service set. The motive to combine is to conform with typical 802.11 access point basic service sets for compatibility.
Regarding claims 17 and 23, Jang discloses wirelessly transmitting a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) during the transmission opportunity (Mu-RTS TXS is transmitted allocating a TXS/TxOPs of the SAP/sharing access point to one or more DAP/scheduled/shared access points, which receives it [fig. 13, “MU-RTS”, paragraph 0197; note also identical fig. 5 of 766 and discussion of operation of MU-RTS on pages 28-29 for allocation TXOP to multiple DAP] and sends a transmission [which is inherently physical layer and therefore a physical layer protocol data unit] during the TXOP/frame exchange [fig. 13, “DAP1’s BSS FE”; note also identical fig 5 of 766].)
Regarding claims 18 and 24, Jang as previously modified by Sun fails to disclose soliciting a wireless transmission of a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) from a station in the first basic service set during the transmission opportunity. In the same field of endeavor, another portion of Sun discloses soliciting a wireless transmission of a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) from a station in the first basic service set during the transmission opportunity. (Sun discloses that each base station is associated with a basic service set/BSSID used by attached stations [paragraph 0028]. Sun further discloses that the scheduled base station solicits, using a CTS, a station to transmit uplink data/PPDU to it [fig. 3B, “CTS”, “Data STA2”)
Therefore, since Sun discloses uplink transmission in the allocated TXOP, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the allocation of Sun with the system of Jang as previously modified by Sun by having the scheduled access point solicit and receive an uplink transmission from an attached station in its BSSID. The motive to combine is to allow the scheduled base station to use the scheduled allocation for uplink transmission to improve available uplink bandwidth.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0247439) in view of Sun, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0422764) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Han, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2016/0028466)
Regarding claim 7, Jang as previously modified by Sun fails to disclose the return transmission opportunity frame is a contention free end (CF-End) frame. (i.e. Sun appears to loosely suggest this in fig. 3B, but the implications are unclear. That is, the CF-End frame is sent as a part of “TXOP Return” but the CF-End is sent after the “time allocation” for the AP2 transmission is complete. This leaves open to interpretation if the cited “Return” is just a completion of transmission or a return of remaining allocated time. Given Sun provides no additional explanation, it was deemed insufficient). In the same field of endeavor, Han discloses the return transmission opportunity frame is a contention free end (CF-End) frame. (Han discloses that unused TXOPs may be returned via a CF-End frame, with the sharing access point resuming local transmission after the SIFS [paragraph 0091-0092].)
Therefore, since Han discloses returning TXOPs using CF-End followed by local transmission after SIFS, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention ro use a CF-End instead of a QoS Null frame to return the TXOP. The motive to combine is to use CF-End for improved compatibility by signaling the end of the transmission using a traditional CF-End, which is usually used to end a contention free period.
Regarding claim 10, Jang as previously modified by Sun fails to disclose the sharing access point wirelessly transmitting a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDDU). In the same field of endeavor, another portion of Sun discloses the sharing access point wirelessly transmitting a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDDU). (Sun discloses that recovered/returned TSOPs may be used by the sharing station itself for transmitting data PPDU to an attached station).
Therefore, since Sun discloses recovered/unused TXOPs may also be used by the sharing access point for data transmission to an attached device, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the self use of Sun with the system of Jang as previously modified by Sun by using the recovered/unused/returned TXOP for transmission of buffered data to an attached device. The motive to combine is to improve throughput of the sharing access point.
Jang as previously modified by Sun and Han fails to disclose transmitting the physical layer protocol data unit (PPDDU) within a short interface space (SIFS) time interval after wirelessly receiving the contention free end (CF-End) frame. In the same field of endeavor, Han discloses transmitting the physical layer protocol data unit (PPDDU) within a short interface space (SIFS) time interval after wirelessly receiving the contention free end (CF-End) frame. (Han discloses that unused TXOPs may be returned via a CF-End frame, with the sharing access point resuming local transmission after the SIFS [paragraph 0091-0092].)
Therefore, since Han discloses returning TXOPs using CF-End followed by local transmission after SIFS, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to resume local transmission at the sharing access point after the SIFS to use the returned TXOP after receiving the CF-End returning it. The motive to combine is to improve utilization by starting transmission after the short interframe spacing instead of a longer interval.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 20260247439) in view of Sun, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/40422764) and Han, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2016/0028466) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Grandhi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2012/0327870)
Regarding claim 8, Jang as modified by Sun and Han fails to disclose a transmitter address field of the contention free end (CF-End) frame indicates an address of the shared access point. In the same field of endeavor, Grandhi discloses a transmitter address field of the contention free end (CF-End) frame indicates an address of the shared access point (Paragaprh 0070 – CF end includes the address/BSSID of the transmitting base station).
Therefore, since Grandhi dislcoses a CF-End with a BSSID, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the CF-End of Grandi with the system of Jang as modified by Sun and Han by including the address/BSSID of the transmitting/shared access point in the CF-End. The motive to combine is to improve compatibility by complying with the standard CF-End format.
Regarding claim 9, Jang as modified by Sun and Han fails to disclose a transmitter field of the contention free end (CF-End) frame comprises a basic service set identifier of the shared access point, a group basic service set identifier shared between the sharing access point and shared access point, or an access point identifier of the shared access point.. In the same field of endeavor, Grandhi discloses a transmitter field of the contention free end (CF-End) frame comprises a basic service set identifier of the shared access point, a group basic service set identifier shared between the sharing access point and shared access point, or an access point identifier of the shared access point. (Paragraph 0070 – CF end includes the address/BSSID of the transmitting base station).
Therefore, since Grandhi discloses a CF-End with a BSSID, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the CF-End of Grandi with the system of Jang as modified by Sun and Han by including the address/BSSID of the transmitting/shared access point in the CF-End. The motive to combine is to improve compatibility by complying with the standard CF-End format.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 11-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to teach suggest or disclose the control frame comprises a particular bit having a particular bit value indicating that the control frame is facilitating allocation of the transmission opportunity held by the sharing access point to the shared access point the return transmission opportunity frame comprises the particular bit having an opposite bit value of the particular bit value indicating that the return transmission opportunity frame is facilitating return of the portion of the transmission opportunity to the sharing access point and a third-party access point, based on overhearing both the control frame and the return transmission opportunity frame with the particular bit, defers a wireless transmission until after the transmission opportunity thereby avoiding a collision with the sharing AP during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing AP. That is, the closest prior art of Jang only discloses the use of a QoS null for the return, but gives no details, let alone the claimed alternating particular bit value. Furthermore, other art is deficient in this regard as well. Finally, the art of Sun further does not disclose a third-party access point, based on overhearing both the control frame and the return transmission opportunity frame with the particular bit, defers a wireless transmission until after the transmission opportunity thereby avoiding a collision with the sharing AP during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing AP. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art fails to teach suggest or disclose the return transmission opportunity frame comprises a particular bit having a particular bit value indicating that the return transmission opportunity frame is facilitating return of the portion of the transmission opportunity to the sharing access point; the sharing access point wirelessly transmits a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing AP; the third-party access point does not overhear the physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) wirelessly transmitted by the sharing access point during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing AP; and the third-party access point, based on overhearing the return transmission opportunity frame with the particular bit value, attempts a channel access during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing AP. That is, the prior art of Jang and Sun do not give any particular structure for the QoS Null and CF-END such that it would include ”a particular bit having a particular bit value indicating that the return transmission opportunity frame is facilitating return of the portion of the transmission opportunity to the sharing access point”. Furthermore, Jang and Sun do not teach that any third party access point could overhear and sieze the returned TXOP, as the TXOP is exclusively controlled by the sharing access point.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to teach suggest or disclose an allocation duration field of the return transmission opportunity frame is used to indicate a duration of the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity being returned to the sharing access point. That is, the closest prior art of Jang and Sun do not disclose any duration field in the return TXOP (nor is one needed as the return is sent to the sharing AP, which knows the duration and is not used by other devices to, for example, use the remaining TXOP). Furthermore, the QoS Null and CF-END of Jang and Sun traditionally do not have a length indicator at all. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to teach suggest or disclose the return transmission opportunity frame comprises a particular field for prompting the sharing access point to wirelessly transmit a clear-to-send frame within a short interframe space time interval or a point coordination function interframe space time interval after wirelessly receiving the return transmission opportunity frame; the method further comprises: in response to the sharing access point wirelessly receiving the return transmission opportunity frame with the particular field, the sharing access point generating the clear-to-send frame, and the sharing access point wirelessly transmitting the clear-to-send frame within the short interframe space time interval or the point coordination function interframe space time interval after wirelessly receiving the return transmission opportunity frame; and a third-party access point, based on overhearing the clear-to-send frame, defers a wireless transmission until after the transmission opportunity thereby avoiding a collision with the sharing AP during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing AP. That is, the prior art of Jang and Sun do not give any particular structure for the QoS Null and CF-END such that it would include ”a particular bit having a particular bit value indicating that the return transmission opportunity frame is facilitating return of the portion of the transmission opportunity to the sharing access point”. Furthermore, Jang and Sun do not teach a third party access point overhearing the CTS and refraining from transmission. Furthermore, it is noted that the channel is already reserved for the duration of the TXOP, so there should be no need for another access point to overhear the CTS and refrain, as the channel is already reserved.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to teach suggest or disclose the return transmission opportunity frame comprises a particular field for prompting the sharing access point to wirelessly transmit a clear-to-send frame within a short interframe space time interval or a point coordination function interframe space time interval after wirelessly receiving the return transmission opportunity frame; the method further comprises: in response to the sharing access point wirelessly receiving the return transmission opportunity frame with the particular field, the sharing access point generating the clear-to-send frame, and the sharing access point wirelessly transmitting the clear-to-send frame within the short interframe space time interval or the point coordination function interframe space time interval after wirelessly receiving the return transmission opportunity frame; and a third-party access point, based on overhearing the return transmission opportunity frame, attempts a channel access during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing AP. That is, no art teaching this limitation could be located, it is further noted that this is non-standard behavior as a node typically uses a CTS to reserve the channel for transmission and it should not be used by other nodes as an indication that it is appropriate to use the channel.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose a duration field of the contention free end (CF-End) frame indicates the portion of the transmission opportunity remaining. That is, the closest prior art of Sun and Han do not disclose any duration field in the return TXOP (nor is one needed as the return is sent to the sharing AP, which knows the duration and is not used by other devices to, for example, use the remaining TXOP). Furthermore, the QoS Null and CF-END of Jang and Sun traditionally do not have a length indicator at all. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose a third-party access point, based on overhearing the contention free end (CF-End) frame, resets a network allocation vector counter. That is, no art teaching this limitation could be located. , it is further noted that this is non-standard behavior as a node typically uses a CTS to reserve the channel for transmission and it should not be used by other nodes as an indication that it is appropriate to use the channel so as to cause modification of the NAV.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose a third-party access point, based on overhearing the contention free end (CF-End) frame, attempts a channel access during the remaining portion of the transmission opportunity returned to the sharing access point. That is, in the closest prior art of Jang the sharing access point is responsible for re-allocating the remaining TXOP. Therefore, Jang does not disclose that another access point, based on overhearing it could seize the remaining TXOP. Furthermore, no other art teaching this limitation could be located.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Author Unknown, Coordinated AP Time/Frequency Sharing in a Transmit Opportunity in 11be, pages 1-16, November 2019 – disclosing TXOP Sharing
Patil, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0365374) – disclosing shared TXOP return
Hwang, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0338251) – disclosing TXOP return
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights