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 .
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 8/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for evaluation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/6/2024 & 1/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 9 & 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7, 8, 9 & 17 recite the word “lager” which is a misspelling of the word “larger”.
Claims 7, 8 & 17 recite “a fourth message” without introducing a third message. For clarity, examiner suggests rewriting these claims to replace “a fourth message” with “a third message”.
Claim 9 recites “third shared APs” without introducing second shared APs. For clarity, examiner suggests rewriting this claim as “second shared APs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lou et al. (US 12537565)(herein after “Lou”).
Regarding claims 1 & 18, Lou discloses a sharing access point (AP) for transmission opportunity (TXOP) sharing, comprising: one or more processors (Col 1, lines 34-47 & col 38, lines 15-18 disclose a wireless access point and a method for the wireless access point for coordinating a multi-access point transmission across multiple access pints through a transmit opportunity of the wireless access point (i.e. the wireless access point is a sharing access point), wherein the method may be implemented by a processor.); and
one or more memories, in which program instructions are stored, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, perform a method for TXOP sharing (Col 38, lines 15-30 disclose that the method for coordinating a multi-access point transmission across multiple access points through a transmit opportunity of the wireless access point may be implemented in a computer program, software or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium, that may be read only memory (ROM), for execution by the processor.), and a method for TXOP sharing by a sharing AP (Col 1, lines 34-47 & col 38, lines 15-18 disclose a method for a wireless access point for coordinating a multi-access point transmission across multiple access pints through a transmit opportunity of the wireless access point (i.e. the wireless access point is a sharing access point).), comprising:
transmitting, to at least one candidate shared AP, a first message indicating that a TXOP owned by the sharing AP is sharable (Fig 8 & col 18, lines 3-6 and Fig 14, col 30, lines 57-67 & col 31, lines 1-10 disclose steps 805 and 1410 where a first AP, that may be a sharing/controlling AP, transmits to other APs (i.e. at least one shared AP) a CAP TXOP Indication (CTI) frame (i.e. a first message) of a TXOP that has been obtained by the first AP and for which the first AP intends to share the TXOP with the other APs.);
receiving one or more second messages respectively from one or more shared APs of the at least one candidate shared AP, wherein each of the one or more second messages indicates resource requirement information of one of the one or more shared APs (Fig 8 & col 20, lines 19-30 and Fig 14 & col 31, lines 11-25 disclose steps 810 and 1415 where the first AP receives at least one CAP TXOP request (CTR) frame (i.e. second message) from one or more of the other APs. Col 33, lines 38-42 disclose that each of the CTR frames from the other APs provides the other APs intention to participate in TXOP sharing and their requests for resources (i.e. resource requirement information).); and
performing resource allocation for the TXOP to the one or more shared APs based on an available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs (Col 16, lines 18-20, Fig 8 & col 21, lines 24-28 and Fig 14 & disclose steps 815 & 1420 the first AP transmitting a CAP TXOP AP Schedule frame to the other APs indicating, based on the reception of the CTR frames, which APs may join the TXOP transmission and including resource allocation information such as available time/frequency resources for the other APs to use during the TXOP.).
Regarding claim 2, Lou discloses wherein the performing the resource allocation for the TXOP to the one or more shared APs based on an available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs comprises: determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP to the one or more shared APs based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs (Fig 8, col 21, lines 24-28, 50-51 & 63-67 and col 22, lines 1-24 disclose the first AP (AP1) determining a first resource allocation of 20 MHz to AP3, 20 MHz to AP4 and 40 MHz to AP1 based on available TXOP resources for the first AP and CTR frames received by the first AP, wherein the first AP indicates the resource allocation through sending a CTAS frame at step 815.).
Regarding claim 11, Lou discloses a method for transmission opportunity (TXOP) sharing by a shared access point (AP), comprising: receiving, from a sharing AP, a first message indicating that a TXOP owned by the sharing AP is sharable (Fig 8 & col 18, lines 3-6 and Fig 14, col 30, lines 57-67 & col 31, lines 1-10 disclose steps 805 and 1410 where a first AP, that may be a sharing/controlling AP, transmits to other APs (i.e. at least one shared AP receives) a CAP TXOP Indication (CTI) frame (i.e. a first message) of a TXOP that has been obtained by the first AP and for which the first AP intends to share the TXOP with the other APs.);
transmitting, to the sharing AP, a second message indicating resource requirement information of the shared AP (Fig 8 & col 20, lines 19-30 and Fig 14 & col 31, lines 11-25 disclose steps 810 and 1415 where the first AP receives at least one CAP TXOP request (CTR) frame (i.e. second message) transmitted from one or more of the other APs. Col 33, lines 38-42 disclose that each of the CTR frames from the other APs provides the other APs intention to participate in TXOP sharing and their requests for resources (i.e. resource requirement information).); and
receiving, from the sharing AP, a first resource allocation result determined based on an available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of one or more shared APs including the shared AP (Col 16, lines 18-20, Fig 8 & col 21, lines 24-28 and Fig 14 & disclose steps 815 & 1420 the first AP transmitting a CAP TXOP AP Schedule frame to the other APs (i.e. other APs receiving the CAP TXOP AP Schedule frame) indicating, based on the reception of the CTR frames, which APs may join the TXOP transmission and including resource allocation information such as available time/frequency resources for the other APs to use during the TXOP.).
Regarding claim 12, Lou discloses further comprising: transmitting data by using a channel resource allocated by the first resource allocation result during the TXOP (Fig 8, col 21, lines 24-28, 50-51 & 63-67 and col 22, lines 1-24 disclose the first AP (AP1) determining a first resource allocation of 20 MHz to AP3, 20 MHz to AP4 and 40 MHz to AP1 based on available TXOP resources for the first AP and CTR frames received by the first AP, wherein the first AP indicates the resource allocation through sending a CTAS frame at step 815, and AP3 and AP4 transmitting DL PPDUs (i.e. transmitting data) to their associated users based on the first resource allocation at step 830.).
Regarding claim 19, Lou discloses wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, perform the resource allocation for the TXOP to the one or more shared APs based on an available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs by: determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP to the one or more shared APs based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs (Fig 8, col 21, lines 24-28, 50-51 & 63-67 and col 22, lines 1-24 disclose the first AP (AP1) determining a first resource allocation of 20 MHz to AP3, 20 MHz to AP4 and 40 MHz to AP1 based on available TXOP resources for the first AP and CTR frames received by the first AP, wherein the first AP indicates the resource allocation through sending a CTAS frame at step 815.).
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.
Claims 3, 4 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (US 12537565)(herein after “Lou”), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0163769)(herein after “Lee”).
Regarding claim 3, Lou discloses the method of claim 2.
Lou fails to disclose but Lee teaches wherein the resource requirement information of each one of the one or more shared APs includes an operating channel resource and primary channel information of the one of the one or more shared APs (Fig 5, [0112] & [0116] discloses an AP2 acting as a master and AP1 sending a resource allocation request to AP2 that includes operating channel information and primary channel information that is wanted by AP1 (i.e. resource requirement information).),
wherein the performing the determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP to the one or more shared APs based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs comprises: allocating one or more channels of the available channel resource of the sharing AP to each one of at least one shared AP of the one or more shared APs, the one or more channels being within the operating channel resource of the one of the at least one shared AP and including at least a primary channel indicated by the primary channel information of the one of the at least one shared AP (Fig 5, [0123] & [0126]-[0128] discloses AP2 determining and sending a resource allocation response frame (i.e. allocating resources) to AP1 including the operating channel and primary channel of AP1 to not overlap with operating channels of legacy APs (i.e. available channel resources), so that AP1 can establish a BSS1 based on recognizing AP1’s requested operating channel and primary channel in the resource allocation response frame. Since AP2 sends AP1 the same operation channel and primary channel information that was requested by AP1 in the resource allocation request frame, determination of the allocation of available channel resources by master AP2 for AP1 would be within the operating channel resources of AP1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 2, as disclosed by Lou, wherein the resource requirement information of each one of the one or more shared APs includes an operating channel resource and primary channel information of the one of the one or more shared APs, wherein the performing the determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP to the one or more shared APs based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs comprises: allocating one or more channels of the available channel resource of the sharing AP to each one of at least one shared AP of the one or more shared APs, the one or more channels being within the operating channel resource of the one of the at least one shared AP and including at least a primary channel indicated by the primary channel information of the one of the at least one shared AP, as taught by Lee. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method where a master AP can receive requested operating channel and primary channel information from a second AP in order to determine resources to allocate to the second AP that do not overlap with resources allocated to other APs in order to avoid interference between AP transmissions to improve performance.
Regarding claim 4, Lou in view of Lee disclose the method of claim 3.
Lou discloses wherein the performing the resource allocation for the TXOP to the one or more shared APs based on an available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs further comprises: transmitting the first resource allocation result to the one or more shared APs, in response to that the available channel resource of the sharing AP covers all operating channel resource(s) of the one or more shared APs (Fig 8, col 21, lines 24-28 & col 22, lines 14-24 disclose the first AP (AP1) transmits CTAS frames to AP2, AP3 & AP4 for a first resource allocation of 20 MHz to AP3, 20 MHz to AP4 and 40 MHz to AP1 covering all four 20 MHz operating channels requested by AP2, AP3 & AP4 through CTRs sent in step 810.).
Regarding claim 20, Lou discloses the sharing AP of claim 19.
Lou fails to disclose but Lee teaches wherein the resource requirement information of each one of the one or more shared APs includes an operating channel resource and primary channel information of the one of the one or more shared APs (Fig 5, [0112] & [0116] discloses an AP2 acting as a master and AP1 sending a resource allocation request to AP2 that includes operating channel information and primary channel information that is wanted by AP1 (i.e. resource requirement information).),
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, perform the determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs by: allocating one or more channels of the available channel resource of the sharing AP to each one of at least one shared AP of the one or more shared APs, the one or more channels being within the operating channel resource of the one of the at least one shared AP and including at least a primary channel indicated by the primary channel information of the one of the at least one shared AP (Fig 5, [0123] & [0126]-[0128] discloses AP2 determining and sending a resource allocation response frame (i.e. allocating resources) to AP1 including the operating channel and primary channel of AP1 to not overlap with operating channels of legacy APs (i.e. available channel resources), so that AP1 can establish a BSS1 based on recognizing AP1’s requested operating channel and primary channel in the resource allocation response frame. Since AP2 sends AP1 the same operation channel and primary channel information that was requested by AP1 in the resource allocation request frame, determination of the allocation of available channel resources by master AP2 for AP1 would be within the operating channel resources of AP1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sharing AP of claim 19, as disclosed by Lou, wherein the resource requirement information of each one of the one or more shared APs includes an operating channel resource and primary channel information of the one of the one or more shared APs, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, perform the determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs by: allocating one or more channels of the available channel resource of the sharing AP to each one of at least one shared AP of the one or more shared APs, the one or more channels being within the operating channel resource of the one of the at least one shared AP and including at least a primary channel indicated by the primary channel information of the one of the at least one shared AP, as taught by Lee. The motivation to do so would have been to have a master AP that can receive requested operating channel and primary channel information from a second AP in order to determine resources to allocate to the second AP that do not overlap with resources allocated to other APs in order to avoid interference between AP transmissions to improve performance.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (US 12537565)(herein after “Lou”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0163769)(herein after “Lee”), as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Bahr et al. (US 11595833)(herein after “Bahr”) and Sun et al. (2024/0090046)(herein after “Sun”).
Regarding claim 5, Lou in view of Lee disclose the method of claim 3.
Lou discloses wherein the performing the resource allocation for the TXOP based on an available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs further comprises: transmitting the first resource allocation result (Col 16, lines 18-20, Fig 8 & col 21, lines 24-28 and Fig 14 & disclose steps 815 & 1420 the first AP transmitting a CAP TXOP AP Schedule frame to the other APs indicating, based on the reception of the CTR frames, which APs may join the TXOP transmission and including resource allocation information such as available time/frequency resources for the other APs to use during the TXOP.).
Lou fails to disclose but Bahr further teaches wherein the performing the resource allocation further comprises: transmitting a third message including the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs to a first shared AP of the one or more shared APs (Table 1, fig 1A, col 5, lines 6-10 & col 6, lines 3-10 disclose an AP112 transmitting Client Association Report (CAR) messages (i.e. a third message) to AP110 and AP 114 including information on each APs load (i.e. resource requirement information). Col 2, lines 56-60 disclose that the APs can be in a master/slave architecture, and thus AP112 may be interpreted as a sharing AP, while AP110 and AP114 are shared APs, such that sharing AP112 sends the CAR messages, including load or resource requirement information, to shared AP110 and AP114.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 3, as disclosed by Lou and Lee, wherein the performing the resource allocation for the TXOP based on an available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs further comprises: transmitting the first resource allocation result, as further taught by Bahr. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method where a master AP collects load information from a group of slave APs and transmits a message to the group of slave APs including the collected load information so that the master AP and slave APs can negotiate to determine the best use of resources to allocate to each AP.
Lou fails to disclose but Sun further teaches to instruct the first shared AP to detect a usable channel resource covering and larger than the available channel resource of the sharing AP in the operating channel resource of the first shared AP for the TXOP and allocate the detected usable channel resource, in response to that the available channel resource of the sharing AP does not cover all operating channel resource(s) of the one or more shared APs and the operating channel resource of the first shared AP covers all of the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the operating channel resource(s) of the one or more shared APs (Fig 3C, [0034], [0052], [0059], [0082]-[0084] disclose an owner AP 105b (i.e. a sharing AP) granting time resources to a second AP 105a (i.e. a shared AP) that instructs second AP 105a to perform a CCA (detects for a usable channel resource) for a bandwidth 315 that covers and is larger than a bandwidth 355 available for a first AP 105b, and if the CCA indicates that the medium is clear for transmission during a shared TXOP, then second AP 105a may transmit or receive over any portion of its operating bandwidth (i.e. covering and larger than the operating bandwidth of first AP 305b) in accordance with scheduling information from first AP 105b, and if second AP 105a senses that the wireless medium is not idle, then second AP 105a may forgo transmitting in the time resources allocated to second AP 105a. Thus disclosed in an owner AP 105b instructing a first AP 105a that time resources are available during a TXOP, which causes first AP 105a to perform a CCA for detecting the availability of channel resources 315 covering and larger than resources available for owner AP 105b (i.e. resources 355), and in response to channel resources 315 of first AP 105a being available by first AP 105a and not available by owner AP 305b, first AP 105a allocates resources 315 for transmission and reception.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 3, as disclosed by Lou and Lee, and to instruct the first shared AP to detect a usable channel resource covering and larger than the available channel resource of the sharing AP in the operating channel resource of the first shared AP for the TXOP and allocate the detected usable channel resource, in response to that the available channel resource of the sharing AP does not cover all operating channel resource(s) of the one or more shared APs and the operating channel resource of the first shared AP covers all of the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the operating channel resource(s) of the one or more shared APs, as further taught by Sun. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method where an owner AP can collect resource requirement information from a client AP, recognize that the owner AP does not have enough bandwidth to meet the client AP’s resource requirement, and send a TXOP sharing indication to the client AP instructing the client AP should perform CCA on a wider channel bandwidth that is wider than and including a smaller channel bandwidth available by the owner AP during a time of a TXOP period, and if the wider channel bandwidth is available then the client AP can allocate resources for transmission and reception on the wider channel bandwidth during the time of the TXOP period, in order to maximize throughput of the client AP.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (US 12537565)(herein after “Lou”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0163769)(herein after “Lee”), as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Chu et al. (US 2024/0260086)(herein after “Chu”) and Amin et al. (WO 2017/151026)(herein after “Amin”).
Regarding claim 9, Lou in view of Lee disclose the method of claim 3.
Lou fails to disclose but Chu further teaches wherein the performing the determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs further comprises: determining, in response to that the primary channel information indicates that primary channels of two or more third shared APs of the one or more shared APs are a same channel, which one of the two or more third shared APs is allocated with the same channel ([0014] discloses a sharing AP determining and allocating a service period of a TXOP to a plurality of shared APs, and if shared APs (i.e. two or more third APs) have the same primary channel, a primary channel switch is performed for one of the APs and the sharing AP would determine to allocate the same primary channel to the AP that does not switch its primary channel.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 3, as disclosed by Lou and Lee, wherein the performing the determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs further comprises: determining, in response to that the primary channel information indicates that primary channels of two or more third shared APs of the one or more shared APs are a same channel, which one of the two or more third shared APs is allocated with the same channel, as further taught by Chu. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method where a sharing AP collects load information from a group of shared APs and determines a resource allocation for the group of shared APs during a TXOP, wherein when two of the shared APs in the group of APs have the same primary channel, one of the two shared APs with the same primary channel switches to a different primary channel and the sharing AP determines to allocate the same primary channel to the other one of the two shared APs that stays on the same primary channel, in order to avoid overlap and interference on the primary channels of the two shared APs that had the same primary channel.
Lou fails to disclose but Amin further teaches wherein the determining of which one of the two or more third shared APs is allocated with the same channel is based on priorities of the two or more third shared APs (Page 3, lines 6-9 disclose a list of AP channels and their priorities for switching primary channels.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 3, wherein the performing the determining a first resource allocation result for the TXOP based on the available channel resource of the sharing AP and the resource requirement information of the one or more shared APs further comprises: determining, in response to that the primary channel information indicates that primary channels of two or more third shared APs of the one or more shared APs are a same channel, which one of the two or more third shared APs is allocated with the same channel, as disclosed by Lou and Lee and Chu, wherein the determining of which one of the two or more third shared APs is allocated with the same channel is based on priorities of the two or more third shared APs, as further taught by Amin. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method where a sharing AP collects load information from a group of shared APs and determines a resource allocation for the group of shared APs during a TXOP, wherein when two of the shared APs in the group of APs have the same primary channel, one of the two shared APs with the same primary channel switches to a different primary channel based on a priority list of APs for switching their primary channel, and the sharing AP determines to allocate the same primary channel to the other one of the two shared APs that stays on the same primary channel, in order to avoid overlap and interference on the primary channels of the two shared APs that had the same primary channel while allowing the other one of the two shared APs, that had higher priority for keeping its primary channel the same, to keep its primary channel the same.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (US 12537565)(herein after “Lou”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0163769)(herein after “Lee”) and Chu et al. (US 2024/0260086)(herein after “Chu”) and Amin et al. (WO 2017/151026)(herein after “Amin”), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of El Moumouhi et al. (US 2015/0215850)(herein after “El Moumouhi”).
Regarding claim 10, Lou in view of Lee and Chu and Amin disclose the method of claim 9.
Lou fails to disclose but El Moumouhi further teaches wherein the resource requirement information of each one of the one or more shared APs further includes Quality of Service (QoS) information of the one of the one or more shared APs, and the priorities of the two or more third shared APs are determined based on the QoS information of the two or more third shared APs ([0059] discloses an ordered list of APs based on QoS class for each AP wherein APs providing the best QoS have higher priority of being selected.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 9, as disclosed by Lou and Lee and Chu and Amin, wherein the resource requirement information of each one of the one or more shared APs further includes Quality of Service (QoS) information of the one of the one or more shared APs, and the priorities of the two or more third shared APs are determined based on the QoS information of the two or more third shared APs, as further taught by El Moumouhi. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method where a sharing AP collects load information from a group of shared APs and determines a resource allocation for the group of shared APs during a TXOP, wherein when two of the shared APs in the group of APs have the same primary channel, one of the two shared APs with the same primary channel switches to a different primary channel based on a priority list of APs for switching their primary channel, wherein the priority list of APs is based on QoS class provided by each AP with APs providing higher QoS listed with higher priority for keeping the same primary channel and APs providing lower QoS listed with lower priority for keeping the same primary channel (i.e. higher priority for switching primary channel), and the sharing AP determines to allocate the same primary channel to the other one of the two shared APs that stays on the same primary channel, in order to avoid overlap and interference on the primary channels of the two shared APs that had the same primary channel while allowing the other one of the two shared APs, that had higher priority for providing better QoS, to keep its primary channel the same to avoid any interruption in service to users receiving high QoS from the other one of the two shared APs.
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (US 12537565)(herein after “Lou”) in view of Sun et al. (2024/0090046)(herein after “Sun”).
Regarding claim 17, Lou discloses the method of claim 11.
Lou discloses transmitting data on the channel resource allocated by the first resource allocation in the TXOP (Fig 8, col 21, lines 24-28, 50-51 & 63-67 and col 22, lines 1-24 disclose the first AP (AP1) determining a first resource allocation of 20 MHz to AP3, 20 MHz to AP4 and 40 MHz to AP1 based on available TXOP resources for the first AP and CTR frames received by the first AP, wherein the first AP indicates the resource allocation through sending a CTAS frame at step 815, and AP3 and AP4 transmitting DL PPDUs (i.e. transmitting data) to their associated users based on the first resource allocation at step 830.).
Lou fails to disclose but Sun teaches further comprising: in response to receiving, from the sharing AP, a fourth message to instruct the shared AP to detect a usable channel resource covering and lager than the channel resource allocated by the first resource allocation result in the operating channel resource of the shared AP for the TXOP and perform data transmission on the detected usable channel resource: detecting whether there is the usable channel resource (Fig 3C, [0034], [0052], [0059], [0082]-[0084] disclose an owner AP 105b (i.e. a sharing AP) granting time resources to a second AP 105a (i.e. a shared AP) that instructs second AP 105a to perform a CCA (detects for a usable channel resource) for a bandwidth 315 that covers and is larger than a bandwidth 355 available for a first AP 105b, and second AP105a detects whether the channel for bandwidth 315 is idle (i.e. usable).);
transmitting data on the detected usable operating channel resource in the TXOP, in response to that the usable channel resource is detected ([0059]-[0060] discloses that if the CCA indicates that the medium is clear for transmission during a shared TXOP, then second AP 105a transmits or receives data over any portion of its operating bandwidth (i.e. covering and larger than the operating bandwidth of first AP 305b) in accordance with scheduling information from first AP 105b.); and
wherein the transmitting data on the channel resource allocated by the first resource allocation in the TXOP, in response to that the usable channel resource is not detected ([0059] discloses that if second AP 105a senses that the wireless medium is not idle, then second AP 105a may forgo transmitting on the bandwidth 315 channel in the time resources allocated to second AP 105a. Thus disclosed in an owner AP 105b instructing a first AP 105a that time resources are available during a TXOP, which causes first AP 105a to perform a CCA for detecting the availability of channel resources 315 covering and larger than resources available for owner AP 105b (i.e. resources 355), and in response to channel resources 315 of first AP 105a being available by first AP 105a the first AP 105a allocates resources 315 for transmission and reception, and in response to the channel resources 315 of the first AP 105a not being available by first AP 105a, first AP 105a would still honor the first resource allocation, as taught by Lou, from second AP 105b and allocate and transmit or receive on resources 355 per the first resource allocation by second AP 105b.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 11, and transmitting data on the channel resource allocated by the first resource allocation in the TXOP, as disclosed by Lou, further comprising: in response to receiving, from the sharing AP, a fourth message to instruct the shared AP to detect a usable channel resource covering and lager than the channel resource allocated by the first resource allocation result in the operating channel resource of the shared AP for the TXOP and perform data transmission on the detected usable channel resource: detecting whether there is the usable channel resource; transmitting data on the detected usable operating channel resource in the TXOP, in response to that the usable channel resource is detected; and wherein the transmitting data on the channel resource allocated by the first resource allocation in the TXOP, in response to that the usable channel resource is not detected, as taught by Sun. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method where a shared AP can receive a TXOP sharing indication from an owner AP with a resource allocation based on operating channels available by the owner AP and instructing the shared AP to perform CCA on a wider channel bandwidth that is wider than and including the operating channel bandwidth available by the owner AP during a time of a TXOP period, and if the wider channel bandwidth is available then the shared AP can allocate resources for transmission and reception on the wider channel bandwidth during the time of the TXOP period, in order to maximize throughput of the client AP, but if the wider channel bandwidth is not available, then the shared AP can allocate resources for transmission and reception on the operating channel bandwidth of the owner AP, in order to still have some throughput during the allocated time of the TXOP period.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 & 13-16 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 and if objections to these claims as described in the section on Claim Objectives above are addressed.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shafin et al. (US 2025/0338269) discloses a Framework for TDMA Based Multi-AP Coordination.
Naik et al. (US 2025/0351121) discloses Coordinated Time Division Multiple Access (C-TDMA) in Wi-Fi Networks for Partial Bandwidth Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) Sharing.
Ajami et al. (US 2024/0381419) discloses Scheduling Enhancements for Transmit Opportunity Sharing.
Sundman et al. (US 2023/0292363) discloses RTS/CTS Coordination for TXOP Sharing.
Nunez et al. (D. Nunez, F. Wilhelm, S. Avallone, M. Smith, B. Bellata, “TXOP sharing with Coordinated Spatial Reuse in Multi-AP Cooperative IEEE 802.11be WLANs”, arXiv:2112.00515v2 [cs.NI], Dec 21, 2021.) discloses TXOP sharing with Coordinated Spatial Reuse in Multi-AP Cooperative IEEE 802.11be WLANs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights