DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on August 29, 2024, March 13, 2025, November 5, 2025 and June 3, 2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 12, 14, 16-18, 21, 22 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The independent claims 1, 10, 18 and 27 of the current application include broader limitations of the independent claim 1 and 16 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 2 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 18 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 3 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 27 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 4 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 27 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 5 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 27 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 6 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 22 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 7 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 27 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 8 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 21 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 9 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 29 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 11 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 17 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 12 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 17 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 13 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 27 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 14 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 27 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 15 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 22 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 16 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 27 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 17 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 21 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 19 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 20 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 21 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 22 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 23 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 6 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 24 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 25 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 6 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 26 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 14 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 28 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 2 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 29 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 2 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
The limitation of claim 30 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
Nonetheless, claims 1-30 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 1-3, 6, 12, 14, 16-18, 21, 22 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1-30 is not patentably distinct from claims 1-3, 6, 12, 14, 16-18, 21, 22 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,778,666 B2.
Claims 1-18 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12-14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The independent claims 1, 10, 18 and 27 of the current application include broader limitations of the independent claim 1, 10, 19 and 20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 2 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 2 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 3 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 4 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 5 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 6 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 5 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 7 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 8 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 8 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 9 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 5 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 11 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 14 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 12 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 14 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 13 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 14 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 13 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 15 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 14 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 16 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 13 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
The limitation of claim 17 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 17 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
Nonetheless, claims 1-18 and 27 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12-14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1-18 and 27 is not patentably distinct from claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12-14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,477 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-13, 15-20 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherian et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0077273).
Regarding claim 1, Cherian et al discloses a first access point (AP) (Fig. 4[105-a]), comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories that store code, the processing system configured to cause the first AP to: transmit a first frame indicating scheduling information for frame communications via at least a portion of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) by one or more other APs, the one or more other APs being associated with respective other basic service sets (OBSSs) that are different than a first basic service set (BSS) associated with the first AP (see at least paragraph 140 discloses transmission of a spatial reuse poll frame, which includes schedule information for obtained TXOP), the scheduling information indicating respective start times for the frame communications, and at least one start time of the respective start times being offset from a start time for a frame communication by the first AP by at least a duration associated with decoding a preamble of a wireless packet in accordance with the wireless packet being an intra-BSS packet or an OBSS packet (see at least paragraph 149 discloses schedule information for obtained TXOP); and transmit or receive one or more wireless packets to or from one or more stations (STAs) associated with the first AP at least partially concurrently with transmission or reception of one or more other wireless packets by the one or more other APs in accordance with the first frame (see at least paragraph 137 and 141 discloses schedule information for obtained TXOP).
Regarding claim 2, Cherian et al discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to select the respective start times for the frame communications to or from the one or more other APs in accordance with one or both of signal strengths of wireless packets received by the first AP from the one or more other APs or levels of interference associated with the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 3, Cherian et al discloses the first frame is a poll frame and is transmitted to one or both of a plurality of APs associated with OBSSs different than the first BSS or the one or more STAs associated with the first AP (see at least paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 6, Cherian et al discloses the one or more other wireless packets are transmitted to or received from one or more other STAs associated with the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 7, Cherian et al discloses the first AP shares the portion of the TXOP with a second AP of the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 8, Cherian et al discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to transmit, via the first frame, an indication of a transmit power level for the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 149).
Regarding claim 9, Cherian et al discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to transmit, via the first frame, instructions for a second AP of the one or more other APs to transmit to a STA (see at least paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 10, Cherian et al discloses a second access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories that store code, the processing system configured to cause the second AP to: receive, from a first AP associated with a first basic service set (BSS), a first frame indicating scheduling information for frame communications via at least a portion of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) by one or more other APs comprising at least the second AP, the one or more other APs being associated with respective other basic service sets (OBSSs) that are different than the first BSS, the scheduling information indicating respective start times for the frame communications, and at least one start time of the respective start times being offset from a start time for a frame communication by the first AP by at least a duration associated with decoding a preamble of a wireless packet in accordance with the wireless packet being an intra-BSS packet or an OBSS packet; and transmit or receive one or more wireless packets at least partially concurrently with transmission or reception of one or more other wireless packets by the first AP to or from one or more STAs associated with the first AP in accordance with the first frame.
Regarding claim 11, Cherian et al discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the second AP to receive, via the first frame, instructions for the second AP to transmit to a STA (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 12, Cherian et al discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the second AP to transmit a signal to the STA in accordance with the instructions (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 13, Cherian et al discloses the respective start times for the frame communications to or from the one or more other APs are in accordance with one or both of signal strengths of wireless packets received by the first AP from the one or more other APs or levels of interference associated with the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 149).
Regarding claim 15, Cherian et al discloses the one or more wireless packets are transmitted to or received from one or more other STAs associated with the second AP (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 16, Cherian et al discloses the first AP shares the portion of the TXOP with the second AP (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 17, Cherian et al discloses the processing system is further configured to cause the second AP to receive, via the first frame, an indication of a transmit power level for the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 18, Cherian et al discloses a method for wireless communications at a first access point (AP), comprising: transmitting a first frame indicating scheduling information for frame communications via at least a portion of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) by one or more other APs, the one or more other APs being associated with respective other basic service sets (OBSSs) that are different than a first basic service set (BSS) associated with the first AP, the scheduling information indicating respective start times for the frame communications, and at least one start time of the respective start times being offset from a start time for a frame communication by the first AP by at least a duration associated with decoding a preamble of a wireless packet in accordance with the wireless packet being an intra-BSS packet or an OBSS packet; and transmitting or receiving one or more wireless packets to or from one or more stations (STAs) associated with the first AP at least partially concurrently with transmission or reception of one or more other wireless packets by the one or more other APs in accordance with the first frame.
Regarding claim 19, Cherian et al discloses selecting the respective start times for the frame communications to or from the one or more other APs in accordance with one or both of signal strengths of wireless packets received by the first AP from the one or more other APs or levels of interference associated with the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 20, Cherian et al discloses the first frame is a poll frame and is transmitted to one or both of a plurality of APs associated with OBSSs different than the first BSS or the one or more STAs associated with the first AP (see at least paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 23, Cherian et al discloses the one or more other wireless packets are transmitted to or received from one or more other STAs associated with the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 24, Cherian et al discloses the first AP shares the portion of the TXOP with a second AP of the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 25, Cherian et al discloses transmitting, via the first frame, an indication of a transmit power level for the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 149).
Regarding claim 26, Cherian et al discloses transmitting, via the first frame, instructions for a second AP of the one or more other APs to transmit to a STA (see at least paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 27, Cherian et al discloses method for wireless communications at a second access point (AP), comprising: receiving, from a first AP associated with a first basic service set (BSS), a first frame indicating scheduling information for frame communications via at least a portion of a transmission opportunity (TXOP) by one or more other APs comprising at least the second AP, the one or more other APs being associated with respective other basic service sets (OBSSs) that are different than the first BSS, the scheduling information indicating respective start times for the frame communications, and at least one start time of the respective start times being offset from a start time for a frame communication by the first AP by at least a duration associated with decoding a preamble of a wireless packet in accordance with the wireless packet being an intra-BSS packet or an OBSS packet; and transmitting or receiving one or more wireless packets at least partially concurrently with transmission or reception of one or more other wireless packets by the first AP to or from one or more STAs associated with the first AP in accordance with the first frame.
Regarding claim 28, Cherian et al discloses receiving, via the first frame, instructions for the second AP to transmit to a STA (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 29, Cherian et al discloses transmitting a signal to the STA in accordance with the instructions (see at least paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 30, Cherian et al discloses the respective start times for the frame communications to or from the one or more other APs are in accordance with one or both of signal strengths of wireless packets received by the first AP from the one or more other APs or levels of interference associated with the one or more other APs (see at least paragraph 149).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 14, 21 and 22 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. A terminal disclaimer (TD) needed to file to overcome nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to show a method, which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Kim et al (US Pat. No. 10,560,962) directed toward transmitting trigger frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights