DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 08/10/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
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 Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on: 08/01/2024, 11/15/2024, and 12/06/2025 are determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS’ are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2025/0294633 A1, Lu et al. (hereinafter “Lu”) in view of US PG Pub. 2026/0143521 A1, Pettersson et al. (hereinafter “Pettersson”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Lu teaches:
A first access point (AP) in a wireless network (AP 110 of Fig. 1 and AP1 of Figs. 10-11), comprising:
a memory (AP device 2300 w/memory 2304 of Fig. 23); and
a processor coupled to the memory (AP device 2300 w/processor 2301 coupled to memory 2304 via bus 2305 of Fig. 23), the processor configured to cause:
transmitting, to a second AP, a first frame requesting target wake time (TWT) based multi-AP coordination, the first frame including a set of TWT parameters for the TWT based multi-AP coordination (paras. [0096], [0112]-[0115], [0154]-[0155], and [0166]-[0169]; Table 1 and Multi-AP Coordination of Fig. 10 —a first coordinated AP (AP1) can transmit a TWT request frame to a second coordinated AP (AP2) —the request frame can include a set of TWT parameters for multi-AP coordinated transmissions, i.e., R-TWT parameter set at paras. [0222]-[0235], and depicted in Fig. 10);
receiving, from the second AP, a second frame indicating acceptance on [sic] (of) a set of the TWT parameters requested from the first AP (paras. [0096], [0112]-[0115], [0154]-[0155], and [0166]-[0169]; Table 1 and Multi-AP Coordination of Fig. 10 —a second, coordinated AP (AP2) can respond to the received TWT request frame, by transmitting TWT response frame to the first AP (AP1), including acceptance of a set of TWT parameters of the request, i.e., ACCEPT R-TWT parameter set at paras. [0222]-[0235], and depicted in Fig. 10); and
establishing the TW [sic] (TWT) based multi-AP coordination with the second AP based on the set of TWT parameters (paras. [0096], [0112]-[0116], [0154]-[0155], and [0166]-[0169]; and Fig. 10 —after AP2 accepts the requested TWT parameter set, multi-AP coordination can be established between AP1 and AP2, i.e., for facilitating joint/coordinated AP transmission, as depicted in Fig. 11).
However, Lu does not explicitly teach:
receiving, from the second AP, an indication of acceptance on a partial set of TWT parameters requested from the first AP; and
establishing MAP coordination with the second AP based on the partial set of TWT parameters.
Pettersson does teach:
receiving, from a second AP, an indication of acceptance on a partial set of TWT parameters requested from the first AP (paras. [0060], [0065]-[0066], [0078]-[0081], and [0102]-[0108]; and 300 of Fig. 3 —an initiating AP can receive partial acceptance (via dynamically adapted/updated MAP/TWT parameters) of a requested parameter set from a responding AP (i.e., a negotiation), which can include timing parameters defining multi-AP (MAP) periods (including R-TWT SPs) of a coordinated MAP operation between APs); and
establishing coordination with a second AP based on the partial set of TWT parameters (paras. [0060], [0065]-[0066], [0078]-[0081], and [0102]-[0108]; and 302 of Fig. 3 —after a negotiated MAP/TWT agreement has been reached between the initiating and responding APs, including an adjusted/updated portion of a corresponding parameter set, coordination between the two APs is established in accordance with the MAP agreement).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu’s multi-access point (MAP) coordination with TWT parameter set acceptance to include, receiving only partial MAP/TWT coordination parameter set acceptance via adjustment/updating of a portion of the parameter set via AP negotiation, as taught by Pettersson.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for dynamic flexibility in coordinating shared MAP resources and to maximize AP resource utilization, as recognized by Pettersson (paras. [0060], [0065]-[0066], [0078]-[0081], and [0102]-[0108]; 300 and 302 of Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 3, Lu in view of Pettersson teaches:
the first AP of claim 1, wherein the second frame includes an indication representing whether the second AP provides a complete acceptance for the set of the TWT parameters (Lu: paras. [0166]-[0167]; and Fig. 10 —the second, responding AP (AP2) can send a TWT ACCEPT response indicating complete acceptance of a corresponding set of R-TWT parameters, as depicted in Fig. 10 —the Examiner notes that when R-TWT negotiations are not an option, complete acceptance or rejection are the only options; thus the Examiner interprets the TWT response ACCEPT to be “complete” —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the: Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 4, Lu in view of Pettersson teaches:
The first AP of claim 1, wherein the first frame includes one or more TWT elements, each TWT element associated with a respective one of one or more TWT schedules that the first AP requests for the TWT based multi-AP coordination (Lu: para. [0155], [0166]-[0167]; and Fig. 10 —a TWT request frame from AP1 to AP2 can include one or more TWT elements containing the R-TWT parameter set field —a broadcast TWT element containing the R-TWT parameter set field can indicate/declare its R-TWT scheduling information, i.e., scheduled STA transmissions, which the Examiner reasonably interprets to be equivalent to a TWT element associated with a requested TWT schedule).
With respect to claim 5, Lu in view of Pettersson teaches:
The first AP of claim 4, wherein each TWT element includes one or more TWT parameter sets, each TWT parameter set associated with a respective one of one or more TWT schedules which the first AP intends to coordinate on with the second AP (Lu: para. [0155], [0166]-[0167]; and Fig. 10 —a TWT request frame from AP1 to AP2 can include one or more TWT elements containing at least one R-TWT parameter set —the corresponding R-TWT parameter set can indicate/declare is R-TWT scheduling information, i.e., scheduled STA transmissions, for coordinating schedules with AP2).
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 9 is written from the perspective of the responding AP (AP 110 of Fig. 1 and AP2 of Figs. 10-11), i.e., the second AP of claim 1, as opposed to a requesting AP, i.e., the first AP of claim 1, wherein the responding first AP of claim 9 comprises a memory and a processor (AP device 2300 w/memory 2304 and processor 2301 coupled to the memory via bus 2305 of Fig. 23). As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Lu in view of Pettersson, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Lu in view of Pettersson, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Lu in view of Pettersson, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Lu in view of Pettersson, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 17 is presented in method form. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Lu in view of Pettersson, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, Lu in view of Pettersson teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein:
the first frame includes one or more TWT elements, each TWT element associated with a respective one of one or more TWT schedules that the first AP requests for the TWT based multi-AP coordination (Lu: para. [0155], [0166]-[0167]; and Fig. 10 —a TWT request frame from AP1 to AP2 can include one or more TWT elements containing the R-TWT parameter set field —a broadcast TWT element containing the R-TWT parameter set field can indicate/declare its R-TWT scheduling information, i.e., scheduled STA transmissions, which the Examiner reasonably interprets to be equivalent to a TWT element associated with a requested TWT schedule); and
each TWT element includes one or more TWT parameter sets, each TWT parameter set associated with a respective one of one or more TWT schedules which the first AP intends to coordinate on with the second AP (Lu: para. [0155], [0166]-[0167]; and Fig. 10 —a TWT request frame from AP1 to AP2 can include one or more TWT elements containing at least one R-TWT parameter set —the corresponding R-TWT parameter set can indicate/declare is R-TWT scheduling information, i.e., scheduled STA transmissions, for coordinating schedules with AP2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-8, 10, 14-16, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the claim feature: “wherein the first frame includes an indication representing whether the first AP [the second AP of claim 10] requests a complete acceptance for the set of the TWT parameters or a partial acceptance for the set of TWT parameters,” in combination with the limitations recited within claims 1/9/17, from which claim 2/10/18 depends. Specifically, no identified prior art describes an AP request frame indication of a specific response type being full or partial acceptance of a TWT parameter set.
With respect to claims 6, 14, and 20, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the claim feature: “wherein the second frame includes one or more TWT elements, each TWT element associated with a response to a respective one of one or more TWT schedules requested by the first AP,” in combination with the limitations recited within claim 1/9/17, from which claim 6/14/20 depends. Specifically, no identified prior art describes an AP response frame with individual TWT elements associated with requested TWT schedules of an AP request frame.
With respect to claims 7-8 and 15-16, these dependent claims would be allowable based at least upon their respective dependence on an otherwise-allowable (objected to) parent claim(s). Additionally, these claims comprise other features expanding upon allowable subject matter, identified above, for their respective parent claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub. 2026/0075521 A1, Kim et al.: teaches multi-AP TWT request-response frame signaling between APs, where TWT agreements may be negotiated for STAs.
US PG Pub. 2025/0393066 A1, Zhou et al.: teaches multi-AP coordinated signaling with request-response frame signaling between APs, where a sharing AP’s requests can be accepted, confirmed or rejected.
US PG Pub. 2026/0059571 A1, Guo et al.: teaches multi-AP coordination solutions where broadcast TWT parameter sets are recommended and various signaling types can be prioritized.
US PG Pub. 2024/0298312 A1, Xia: teaches inter-BSS APs that support negotiations processes for cooperative R-TWT SPs scheduling, with traffic prioritization and interference avoidance.
US PG Pub. 2023/0319886 A1, Wang et al.: teaches coordinating APs that share TXOP resources according to member multi-AP sets (MAPS), where transmission schedules are coordinated for non-interference.
US PG Pub. 2023/0139168 A1, Xin et al.: teaches scheduling SPs of R-TWT including request-response frame exchanges, and coordinated APs utilizing a ML TWT Parameter Set.
US PG Pub. 2024/0389028 A1, Alizadeh et al.: teaches peer-to-peer AP-coordinated TWT scheduling solutions, including negotiation of a specific TWT schedules between peers.
US PG Pub. 2023/0140312 A1, Ajami et al.: teaches multi-AP coordinated scheduling of R-TWT SPs with latency-sensitive traffic prioritization for overlapping BSSs with EDCA parameter support for multiple APs and/or STAs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights