CTNF 18/789,560 CTNF 90783 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is a response to an application filed on 07/30/2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024, 02/24/2025 and 12/10/2025 have been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arik Klein et al., “M-AP Coordination Agreement”, IEEE 802.11-23/767r0, May 2023 ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Klein” in view of Hsu et al. (US 2022/0150796) ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Hsu” . As to claim 1 , Klein teaches a first access point (AP) in a wireless network (Klein, page 9, slide 7, an AP from all the APs) , comprising: establishing multi-AP coordination with a second AP (Klein, page 9, slide 7, “the capabilities of all APs are known before the M-AP coordination agreement is established”, page 10, slide 8, “This contribution presents the M-AP coordination agreement as the prerequisite for a M-AP coordinated transmission”) , the multi-AP coordination including a set of agreements established between the first AP and the second AP (Klein, page 9, slide 7, “the parameters which may be included is such agreement should be those that remain fixed for the entire lifetime of that agreement. For example…Coordination scheme…Max Operation BW…Should resources be shared with: All APs? A subset of all APs? (Sharing Method of resources)”) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 1, a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to cause: transmitting, to the second AP, a first frame that requests to terminate one or more agreements established between the first AP and the second AP. However, Hsu teaches a memory (Hsu, Fig. 2, [0015], the master AP includes a memory) ; and a processor coupled to the memory (Hsu, Fig. 2, [0015], the master AP includes a processor connected to the memory) , the processor configured to cause: transmitting, to the second AP, a first frame that requests to terminate one or more agreements established between the first AP and the second AP (Hsu, [0029], “after receiving the response frame RP from the coordination AP 204, the control circuit 216 of the master AP 202 may send a withdrawal announcement frame WD to the coordination AP 204 via the TX circuit 218 for withdrawing SP coordination initiated by the master AP 202”, [0032], “after setup of the coordinated SP is completed, the control circuit 216 of the master AP 202 may send a teardown announcement frame TD_1 to the coordination AP 204 via the TX circuit 218, where the teardown announcement frame TD_1 sent by the master AP 202 is arranged to tear down SP coordination between the master AP 202 and the coordination AP 204”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . As to claim 8 , Klein teaches a first access point (AP) in a wireless network (Klein, page 9, slide 7, an AP from all the APs) , comprising: establishing multi-AP coordination with a second AP (Klein, page 9, slide 7, “the capabilities of all APs are known before the M-AP coordination agreement is established”, page 10, slide 8, “This contribution presents the M-AP coordination agreement as the prerequisite for a M-AP coordinated transmission”) , the multi-AP coordination including a set of agreements established between the first AP and the second AP (Klein, page 9, slide 7, “the parameters which may be included is such agreement should be those that remain fixed for the entire lifetime of that agreement. For example…Coordination scheme…Max Operation BW…Should resources be shared with: All APs? A subset of all APs? (Sharing Method of resources)”) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 8, a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to cause: receiving, from the second AP, a first frame that requests to terminate one or more agreements established between the first AP and the second AP. However, Hsu teaches a memory (Hsu, Fig. 2, [0013], “The master AP 202 may be one of the APs 102, 104, 106 included in the coordination group 100 shown in FIG. 1, and the coordination AP 204 may be another of the APs 102, 104, 106 included in the coordination group 100 shown in FIG. 1”, [0015], the coordination AP includes a memory, similar to the master AP) ; and a processor coupled to the memory (Hsu, Fig. 2, [0013], “The master AP 202 may be one of the APs 102, 104, 106 included in the coordination group 100 shown in FIG. 1, and the coordination AP 204 may be another of the APs 102, 104, 106 included in the coordination group 100 shown in FIG. 1”, [0015], the coordination AP includes a processor connected to the memory, similar to the master AP) , the processor configured to cause: receiving, from the second AP, a first frame that requests to terminate one or more agreements established between the first AP and the second AP (Hsu, [0029], “after receiving the response frame RP from the coordination AP 204, the control circuit 216 of the master AP 202 may send a withdrawal announcement frame WD to the coordination AP 204 via the TX circuit 218 for withdrawing SP coordination initiated by the master AP 202”, [0032], “after setup of the coordinated SP is completed, the control circuit 216 of the master AP 202 may send a teardown announcement frame TD_1 to the coordination AP 204 via the TX circuit 218, where the teardown announcement frame TD_1 sent by the master AP 202 is arranged to tear down SP coordination between the master AP 202 and the coordination AP 204”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . As to claim 15 , Klein teaches a method performed by a first access point (AP) device in a wireless network (Klein, page 9, slide 7, an AP from all the APs) , comprising: establishing multi-AP coordination with a second AP (Klein, page 9, slide 7, “the capabilities of all APs are known before the M-AP coordination agreement is established”, page 10, slide 8, “This contribution presents the M-AP coordination agreement as the prerequisite for a M-AP coordinated transmission”) , the multi-AP coordination including a set of agreements established between the first AP and the second AP (Klein, page 9, slide 7, “the parameters which may be included is such agreement should be those that remain fixed for the entire lifetime of that agreement. For example…Coordination scheme…Max Operation BW…Should resources be shared with: All APs? A subset of all APs? (Sharing Method of resources)”) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 15, transmitting, to the second AP, a first frame that requests to terminate one or more agreements established between the first AP and the second AP. However, Hsu teaches transmitting, to the second AP, a first frame that requests to terminate one or more agreements established between the first AP and the second AP (Hsu, [0029], “after receiving the response frame RP from the coordination AP 204, the control circuit 216 of the master AP 202 may send a withdrawal announcement frame WD to the coordination AP 204 via the TX circuit 218 for withdrawing SP coordination initiated by the master AP 202”, [0032], “after setup of the coordinated SP is completed, the control circuit 216 of the master AP 202 may send a teardown announcement frame TD_1 to the coordination AP 204 via the TX circuit 218, where the teardown announcement frame TD_1 sent by the master AP 202 is arranged to tear down SP coordination between the master AP 202 and the coordination AP 204”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arik Klein et al., “M-AP Coordination Agreement”, IEEE 802.11-23/767r0, May 2023 ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Klein” in view of Hsu et al. (US 2022/0150796) ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Hsu” and further in view of Matsuo (US 2017/0230868) . Klein and Hsu teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein and Hsu do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to cause: receiving, from the second AP, a second frame indicating a response to the first frame, the second frame including a field indicating acceptance, rejection, or alternative suggestion to requested termination of at least one agreement between the first AP and the second AP. As to claim 2 , Matsuo teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause: receiving, from the second AP (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], the base station 100b) , a second frame indicating a response to the first frame (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], “…base station 100a transmits the coordinated transmission end instruction (CoMP stop notification) to base station 100b. Base station 100b releases (resource release) the resources used for the coordinated transmission, and notifies base station 100a of the end response (CoMP response)”) , the second frame including a field indicating acceptance (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], “Base station 100b releases (resource release) the resources used for the coordinated transmission, and notifies base station 100a of the end response (CoMP response)”) , rejection, or alternative suggestion to requested termination of at least one agreement between the first AP and the second AP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein and Hsu to have the features, as taught by Matsuo, in order to increase the performance of the system by selecting an optimal mode for coordinated transmission between a master base station and the slave base station depending on a situation of the network (Matsuo, [0076]) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 3, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating if a partial termination of the set of agreements is requested or a full termination of the set of agreements. As to claim 3 , Hsu teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating if a partial termination of the set of agreements is requested or a full termination of the set of agreements (Hsu, Fig. 3, [0029], “the setup frame SEP may be configured by updating at least a portion (i.e., part or all) of the SP parameters that are included in the request frame REQ. For example, the setup frame SEP for setting up a periodic coordinated SP may contain partially/fully updated SP parameters, including a period, an offset of the period from the transmission frame, repetitions of the period, a sharing method, and optional parameters based on the sharing method”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 7, wherein when the field indicates that the partial termination is requested, a subset of agreements requested by the first frame or the second frame is terminated. As to claim 7 , Hsu teaches wherein when the field indicates that the partial termination is requested, a subset of agreements requested by the first frame or the second frame is terminated (Hsu, Fig. 3, [0029], “the setup frame SEP may be configured by updating at least a portion (i.e., part or all) of the SP parameters that are included in the request frame REQ. For example, the setup frame SEP for setting up a periodic coordinated SP may contain partially/fully updated SP parameters, including a period, an offset of the period from the transmission frame, repetitions of the period, a sharing method, and optional parameters based on the sharing method”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . Klein and Hsu teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein and Hsu do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting, to the second AP, a second frame indicating a response to the first frame, the second frame including a field indicating acceptance, rejection, or alternative suggestion to requested termination of at least one agreement between the first AP and the second AP. As to claim 9 , Matsuo teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting, to the second AP (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], the base station 100a) , a second frame indicating a response to the first frame (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], “…base station 100a transmits the coordinated transmission end instruction (CoMP stop notification) to base station 100b. Base station 100b releases (resource release) the resources used for the coordinated transmission, and notifies base station 100a of the end response (CoMP response)”) , the second frame including a field indicating acceptance (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], “Base station 100b releases (resource release) the resources used for the coordinated transmission, and notifies base station 100a of the end response (CoMP response)”) , rejection, or alternative suggestion to requested termination of at least one agreement between the first AP and the second AP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein and Hsu to have the features, as taught by Matsuo, in order to increase the performance of the system by selecting an optimal mode for coordinated transmission between a master base station and the slave base station depending on a situation of the network (Matsuo, [0076]) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 10, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating if a partial termination of the set of agreements is requested or a full termination of the set of agreements. As to claim 10 , Hsu teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating if a partial termination of the set of agreements is requested or a full termination of the set of agreements (Hsu, Fig. 3, [0029], “the setup frame SEP may be configured by updating at least a portion (i.e., part or all) of the SP parameters that are included in the request frame REQ. For example, the setup frame SEP for setting up a periodic coordinated SP may contain partially/fully updated SP parameters, including a period, an offset of the period from the transmission frame, repetitions of the period, a sharing method, and optional parameters based on the sharing method”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 14, wherein when the field indicates that the partial termination is requested, a subset of agreements requested by the first frame or the second frame is terminated. As to claim 14 , Hsu teaches wherein when the field indicates that the partial termination is requested, a subset of agreements requested by the first frame or the second frame is terminated (Hsu, Fig. 3, [0029], “the setup frame SEP may be configured by updating at least a portion (i.e., part or all) of the SP parameters that are included in the request frame REQ. For example, the setup frame SEP for setting up a periodic coordinated SP may contain partially/fully updated SP parameters, including a period, an offset of the period from the transmission frame, repetitions of the period, a sharing method, and optional parameters based on the sharing method”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . Klein and Hsu teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein and Hsu do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 16, further comprising: receiving, from the second AP, a second frame indicating a response to the first frame, the second frame including a field indicating acceptance, rejection, or alternative suggestion to requested termination of at least one agreement between the first AP and the second AP. As to claim 16 , Matsuo teaches further comprising: receiving, from the second AP (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], the base station 100b) , a second frame indicating a response to the first frame (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], “…base station 100a transmits the coordinated transmission end instruction (CoMP stop notification) to base station 100b. Base station 100b releases (resource release) the resources used for the coordinated transmission, and notifies base station 100a of the end response (CoMP response)”) , the second frame including a field indicating acceptance (Matsuo, Fig. 3, [0074], “Base station 100b releases (resource release) the resources used for the coordinated transmission, and notifies base station 100a of the end response (CoMP response)”) , rejection, or alternative suggestion to requested termination of at least one agreement between the first AP and the second AP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein and Hsu to have the features, as taught by Matsuo, in order to increase the performance of the system by selecting an optimal mode for coordinated transmission between a master base station and the slave base station depending on a situation of the network (Matsuo, [0076]) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 17, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating if a partial termination of the set of agreements is requested or a full termination of the set of agreements. As to claim 17 , Hsu teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating if a partial termination of the set of agreements is requested or a full termination of the set of agreements (Hsu, Fig. 3, [0029], “the setup frame SEP may be configured by updating at least a portion (i.e., part or all) of the SP parameters that are included in the request frame REQ. For example, the setup frame SEP for setting up a periodic coordinated SP may contain partially/fully updated SP parameters, including a period, an offset of the period from the transmission frame, repetitions of the period, a sharing method, and optional parameters based on the sharing method”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . Klein teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein does not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 20, wherein when the field indicates that the partial termination is requested, a subset of agreements requested by the first frame or the second frame is terminated. As to claim 20 , Hsu teaches wherein when the field indicates that the partial termination is requested, a subset of agreements requested by the first frame or the second frame is terminated (Hsu, Fig. 3, [0029], “the setup frame SEP may be configured by updating at least a portion (i.e., part or all) of the SP parameters that are included in the request frame REQ. For example, the setup frame SEP for setting up a periodic coordinated SP may contain partially/fully updated SP parameters, including a period, an offset of the period from the transmission frame, repetitions of the period, a sharing method, and optional parameters based on the sharing method”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein to have the features, as taught by Hsu, in order to coordinate operations of APs in a multiple AP environment during a service period, which may achieve OBSS interference mitigation, guaranteed quality of service (QoS), and/or predictable transmit and receive behaviors during the service period (Hsu, [0003]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arik Klein et al., “M-AP Coordination Agreement”, IEEE 802.11-23/767r0, May 2023 ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Klein” in view of Hsu et al. (US 2022/0150796) ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Hsu” and further in view of Matsuo (US 2017/0230868) and further in view of Chitrakar et al. (WO 2022/132030) ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Chitrakar” . Klein, Hsu and Matsuo teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein, Hsu and Matsuo do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 4, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating a type of multi-AP coordination. As to claim 4 , Chitrakar teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating a type of multi-AP coordination (Chitrakar, Figs. 16 and 18, [0081], “New Public Action frames, such as Coordinated SP Request Action frame 1600 of Fig. 16 and Coordinated SP Response Action frame 1800 of Fig. 18, may be used to negotiate the Coordinated SPs…The Schedule Element field 1602 may also include a Schedule Info field 1604 that may indicate a Coordinated SP Type value”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein, Hsu and Matsuo to have the features, as taught by Chitrakar, in order to coordinate transmissions in time domain, transmission power, resource unit assignment, beamforming and MU-MIMO transmissions between APs (Chitrakar, [0004]) . Klein, Hsu and Matsuo teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein, Hsu and Matsuo do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 11, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating a type of multi-AP coordination. As to claim 11 , Chitrakar teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating a type of multi-AP coordination (Chitrakar, Figs. 16 and 18, [0081], “New Public Action frames, such as Coordinated SP Request Action frame 1600 of Fig. 16 and Coordinated SP Response Action frame 1800 of Fig. 18, may be used to negotiate the Coordinated SPs…The Schedule Element field 1602 may also include a Schedule Info field 1604 that may indicate a Coordinated SP Type value”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein, Hsu and Matsuo to have the features, as taught by Chitrakar, in order to coordinate transmissions in time domain, transmission power, resource unit assignment, beamforming and MU-MIMO transmissions between APs (Chitrakar, [0004]) . Klein, Hsu and Matsuo teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein, Hsu and Matsuo do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 18, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating a type of multi-AP coordination. As to claim 18 , Chitrakar teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating a type of multi-AP coordination (Chitrakar, Figs. 16 and 18, [0081], “New Public Action frames, such as Coordinated SP Request Action frame 1600 of Fig. 16 and Coordinated SP Response Action frame 1800 of Fig. 18, may be used to negotiate the Coordinated SPs…The Schedule Element field 1602 may also include a Schedule Info field 1604 that may indicate a Coordinated SP Type value”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein, Hsu and Matsuo to have the features, as taught by Chitrakar, in order to coordinate transmissions in time domain, transmission power, resource unit assignment, beamforming and MU-MIMO transmissions between APs (Chitrakar, [0004]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arik Klein et al., “M-AP Coordination Agreement”, IEEE 802.11-23/767r0, May 2023 ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Klein” in view of Hsu et al. (US 2022/0150796) ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Hsu” and further in view of Matsuo (US 2017/0230868) and further in view of Chitrakar et al. (2022/0190880), hereinafter “Chitrakar ‘880” . Klein, Hsu and Matsuo teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein, Hsu and Matsuo do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 5, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating an identifier of an agreement to be terminated. As to claim 5 , Chitrakar ‘880 teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating an identifier of an agreement to be terminated (Chitrakar ‘880, Fig. 9, [0080], the master AP transmits the AP Coordination Session Teardown frame with a Session ID, where each joint transmission session is identified by a unique Session ID. See also Fig. 10) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein, Hsu and Matsuo to have the features, as taught by Chitrakar ‘880, in order to improve the SINR of member STAs by performing coordination among the APs of neighboring BSSs in an effective way for dense AP deployment or in-home networks (Chitrakar ‘880, [0033]) . Klein, Hsu and Matsuo teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein, Hsu and Matsuo do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 12, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating an identifier of an agreement to be terminated. As to claim 12 , Chitrakar ‘880 teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating an identifier of an agreement to be terminated (Chitrakar ‘880, Fig. 9, [0080], the master AP transmits the AP Coordination Session Teardown frame with a Session ID, where each joint transmission session is identified by a unique Session ID. See also Fig. 10) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein, Hsu and Matsuo to have the features, as taught by Chitrakar ‘880, in order to improve the SINR of member STAs by performing coordination among the APs of neighboring BSSs in an effective way for dense AP deployment or in-home networks (Chitrakar ‘880, [0033]) . Klein, Hsu and Matsuo teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein, Hsu and Matsuo do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 19, wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating an identifier of an agreement to be terminated. As to claim 19 , Chitrakar ‘880 teaches wherein the first frame or the second frame includes a field indicating an identifier of an agreement to be terminated (Chitrakar ‘880, Fig. 9, [0080], the master AP transmits the AP Coordination Session Teardown frame with a Session ID, where each joint transmission session is identified by a unique Session ID. See also Fig. 10) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein, Hsu and Matsuo to have the features, as taught by Chitrakar ‘880, in order to improve the SINR of member STAs by performing coordination among the APs of neighboring BSSs in an effective way for dense AP deployment or in-home networks (Chitrakar ‘880, [0033]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arik Klein et al., “M-AP Coordination Agreement”, IEEE 802.11-23/767r0, May 2023 ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Klein” in view of Hsu et al. (US 2022/0150796) ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Hsu” and further in view of Chitrakar et al. (WO 2022/132030) ( provided in the IDS ), hereinafter “Chitrakar” . Klein and Hsu teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein and Hsu do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 6, wherein the multi-AP coordination is a target wake time (TWT) based multi-AP coordination. As to claim 6 , Chitrakar teaches wherein the multi-AP coordination is a target wake time (TWT) based multi-AP coordination (Chitrakar, Fig. 19, [0083], “TWT Setup frames may be used to negotiate the Coordinated SPs. Referring to an example TWT Setup frame 1900 of Fig. 19 that may be utilized for TWT Request and Response to setup Multi-AP Coordinated TWT SPs, TWT Setup frame 1900 may include one or more TWT Element fields 1902 which include a Coordinated SP Type field 1904 for specifying the Multi-AP Coordination scheme and/or allowed traffic type”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein and Hsu to have the features, as taught by Chitrakar, in order to coordinate transmissions in time domain, transmission power, resource unit assignment, beamforming and MU-MIMO transmissions between APs (Chitrakar, [0004]) . Klein and Hsu teach the claimed limitations as stated above. Klein and Hsu do not explicitly teach the following features: regarding claim 13, wherein the multi-AP coordination is a target wake time (TWT) based multi-AP coordination. As to claim 13 , Chitrakar teaches wherein the multi-AP coordination is a target wake time (TWT) based multi-AP coordination (Chitrakar, Fig. 19, [0083], “TWT Setup frames may be used to negotiate the Coordinated SPs. Referring to an example TWT Setup frame 1900 of Fig. 19 that may be utilized for TWT Request and Response to setup Multi-AP Coordinated TWT SPs, TWT Setup frame 1900 may include one or more TWT Element fields 1902 which include a Coordinated SP Type field 1904 for specifying the Multi-AP Coordination scheme and/or allowed traffic type”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klein and Hsu to have the features, as taught by Chitrakar, in order to coordinate transmissions in time domain, transmission power, resource unit assignment, beamforming and MU-MIMO transmissions between APs (Chitrakar, [0004]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Sayana et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0281556 – Multi-cell coordinated transmission in wireless communication network. Lu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0294633 – Operation method and devices thereof. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO H CASTANEYRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:30pm. 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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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. /RICARDO H CASTANEYRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 2 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 3 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 4 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 5 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 6 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 7 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 8 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 9 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 10 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 11 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 12 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 13 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 14 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 15 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 16 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 17 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 18 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 19 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 20 Art Unit: 2473 Application/Control Number: 18/789,560 Page 21 Art Unit: 2473
Prosecution Insights