CTNF 18/796,765 CTNF 85280 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2025/0150967 A1, hereinafter Chu) in view of Monajemi (US 2020/0229086 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses advertising, by a first AP, a first IE indicating a TWT schedule capability of the first AP;a first AP advertising TWT scheduling information and restricted-TWT coordination capability to neighboring APs through exchanged coordination information and TWT-related signaling. See Fig. 2 (coordination request/response), Fig. 3 (TWT element fields), ¶¶ [0020]-[0024], [0038]-[0040]. receiving, by the first AP, from a second AP, a request to establish a TWT schedule coordination agreement according to the TWT schedule capability of the first AP; CHU teaches AP-to-AP coordination in which AP2 transmits an r-TWT coordination request to AP1 for establishment of coordinated TWT scheduling and AP1 receives the request. See Fig. 2, elements 204 and 206, and ¶¶ [0020]-[0021]. transmitting, by the first AP, a second IE to the second AP, the second IE including information indicating a TWT schedule of the first AP. CHU teaches transmitting a coordination response containing AP schedule information and exchanging TWT schedules between neighboring APs. See Fig. 2 (coordination response 206), Fig. 3 (TWT element fields carrying schedule information), and ¶¶ [0021]-[0025], [0038]. To the extent CHU does not explicitly disclose that the advertised capability is conveyed in a first information element indicating a TWT schedule capability, Monajemi teaches exchanging TWT schedule information among neighboring APs/BSSs and communicating TWT scheduling information between APs to facilitate coordinated scheduling. See Abstract, ¶¶ [0042]-[0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the AP-to-AP TWT coordination mechanism of CHU with the explicit TWT capability and schedule-information exchange teachings of Monajemi because both references are directed to coordinating TWT schedules among neighboring APs to reduce interference, improve scheduling efficiency, and facilitate coordinated operation among overlapping wireless networks. Such a combination would merely apply a known TWT schedule-information exchange technique to the known AP coordination framework of CHU to obtain predictable results. Accordingly, claim 1 is obvious over CHU in view of Monajemi. Regarding Claim 2, CHU teaches multiple coordination modes and coordination information exchanged between APs for TWT coordination. See Fig. 3 and ¶¶ [0024]-[0027], [0038]. The claimed level of coordination selected from a plurality of levels would have been an obvious design choice representing different degrees of AP coordination and schedule sharing, as suggested by CHU’s varying coordination operations and schedule management functions. Regarding Claim 3, CHU teaches varying levels of coordination including schedule announcement, schedule alignment, and coordinated scheduling between neighboring APs through exchanged coordination information and TWT schedule management. See ¶¶ [0024]-[0028], [0038]. Therefore claim 3 is obvious over CHU in view of Monajemi. Regarding Claim 4, CHU teaches receiving schedule information from a neighboring AP and transmitting schedule information to associated stations. See Fig. 2, coordination response 206, notification frames 214 and 216, and ¶¶ [0020]-[0025]. The received schedule information corresponds to the claimed third IE indicating a TWT schedule of the second AP. Regarding Claim 5, CHU teaches AP groups and neighboring AP coordination within overlapping BSS environments. See Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0016]-[0019], [0038]. Designation of one AP as a coordinating AP and others as member APs would have been an obvious network management implementation. Regarding Claim 6: Fig. 3 of CHU teaches TWT element fields including schedule information fields and coordination information fields. Regarding Claim 7: Fig. 3 of CHU teaches fields identifying schedule participants and associated BSS information. Regarding Claim 8: Fig. 3 of CHU teaches optional fields and lists associated with coordinated schedules. Regarding Claim 9: Fig. 3 of ChU expressly teaches a TWT element including subfields identifying coordination functions and schedule purposes. Regarding Claim 10: Fig. 2 of CHU teaches coordination frames containing action details and schedule coordination information exchanged between APs. Regarding claims 11–20, Claims 11–20 recite the corresponding apparatus/AP implementation of the method limitations of claims 1–10. CHU teaches an AP including: a wireless transceiver; processors; AP-to-AP TWT coordination functionality; transmitting and receiving coordination requests and responses; exchanging TWT schedule information. See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and ¶¶ [0020]-[0028], [0038]. Monajemi further teaches exchanging TWT schedule information among neighboring APs and coordinated TWT scheduling among BSSs. See Abstract and ¶¶ [0042]-[0044]. Therefore claims 11–20 are obvious over CHU in view of Monajemi. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM . 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191 . 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. /ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/796,765 Page 2 Art Unit: 2412
Prosecution Insights