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 (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the limitation reciting that the measurement report frame is transmitted “the measurement report frame is received before the first SP or the second SP if the first SP is predicted to overlap with the second SP at the first STA, or the measurement report frame is transmitted after the first SP or the second SP if the first SP is determined to overlap” is indefinite because the conditional language makes it unclear whether either transmission step is required to be performed. For purposes of examination and to advance compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “if the first SP is predicted to overlap with the second SP” as requiring the recited transmission only when the stated condition occurs, such that neither alternative need be performed (MPEP 2173.06).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “first target wake time (TWP) configuration information” and thereafter refers to “TWT reconfiguration information”, such that it is unclear whether “TWP” and “TWT” refer to the same or different information. For purposes of examination and to advance compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “first target wake time (TWP) configuration information” as a typographical error for target wake time (TWT) configuration information (MPEP 2173.06).
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou (US 2021/0037464 A1) in view of Chitrakar (US 2021/0360522 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2020/0136758 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cariou discloses: A method of a first station (STA), comprising: identifying a first service period (SP) configured by a first access point (AP) associated with the first STA, because Cariou teaches a station that negotiates and tracks a target wake time service period agreed with its associated access point, so the station knows the start time and duration of the interval in which it communicates with that access point: (Cariou, para [0030] “In such examples of late termination, a TWT negotiation system can facilitate that during the TWT negotiation, multiple modes of operation can be agreed on between the STA and the AP.”)
Furthermore, Cariou discloses: determining that the first SP overlaps the second SP, because Cariou teaches an evaluation at the station of whether its service period with the access point conflicts with a scheduled connection to another device, the station signaling that the service period cannot be exceeded when such a scheduled connection exists: (Cariou, para [0172] “the target wake time negotiator is further to distribute a signal to the access point via the component interface indicating the service period of the target wake time cannot be exceeded when the connection manager indicates the station is scheduled to connect with the device different from the access point”)
Although Cariou teaches a station that negotiates a target wake time service period with its associated access point and evaluates whether that service period conflicts with a separately scheduled connection to another device, reporting the constraint to the access point: (Cariou, [0030], [0172], [0037]), Cariou does not explicitly disclose identifying a second SP configured by a second AP.
However, Cariou in view of Chitrakar discloses identifying a second SP configured by a second AP because Chitrakar teaches a station that reads target wake time service period allocations for multiple basic service sets from a received beacon, an element defined precisely to indicate service periods in a band other than the one it is carried on, so the station learns the service period scheduling of an access point other than the one that sent the element (Chitrakar, para [0110], “The MB TWT element 1800 is defined to negotiate /i ndicate TWT Service Periods ( SP) in a different band ( as indicated in the Band ID field 1810) from the band on which the element is transmitted.”; Chitrakar, para [0108], “The AP includes the MB TWT element 1720 in the Beacon frame to indicate that AP has allocated broadcast TWT SPs on all 3 bands for the STA starting at time 1722.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Chitrakar's multi-band target wake time signaling to Cariou's negotiated service period arrangement, because Chitrakar shows a station learning service period allocations belonging to more than one basic service set from beacon-carried elements, and a station that already tracks its own service period gains an immediate benefit from also knowing the service periods scheduled elsewhere: it can anticipate when its awake interval will coincide with another network's awake interval and plan its radio activity accordingly.
Even though Cariou in view of Chitrakar teaches a station that negotiates a target wake time service period with its associated access point and evaluates whether that service period conflicts with a separately scheduled connection to another device, reporting the constraint to the access point: (Cariou, [0030], [0172], [0037], Chitrakar, para [0110], para [0108]), Cariou in view of Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose transmitting a measurement report frame indicating an overlap between the first SP and the second SP to the first AP.
Nevertheless, Cariou in view of Chitrakar and further in view of Wang discloses transmitting a measurement report frame indicating an overlap between the first SP and the second SP to the first AP because Wang teaches Wang has the monitoring station send a measurement report element back to the requesting access point that carries measured parameters including detection of an overlapped packet during a reception interval and the time at which the overlap occurred, which under a broad reading is a management frame reporting an overlap condition observed during the station's scheduled interval to the access point (Wang, para [0200], “The ReFIRe measurement report may be sent back to the requesting STA according to the rules specified in the ReFIRe Measurement Reporting Request, using a frame containing the ReFIRe Measurement Report element.”; Wang, para [0219], “the reception failure details field may indicate the time at which the received packet was corrupted, for example, the time at which an overlapped packet was detected during the reception of the packet.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Wang's measurement reporting mechanism to the combination of Cariou and Chitrakar, because Wang teaches a station that records the detection of an overlapped packet, including when the overlap occurred, and returns that record to the access point in a report frame; the access point in Cariou is the entity that sets the service period schedule, so giving it the station's overlap observations lets it adjust that schedule from measured data rather than guesswork.
Regarding claim 2, in spite of the fact that Cariou in view of Wang teaches a negotiated target wake time service period between the station and its access point, beacon-carried service period information for another access point, and a report frame conveying an observed overlap: (Cariou, para. [0030], [0172]; Wang, para. [0200]), Cariou in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose identification of the first and second service periods from target wake time configuration information carried in beacon or probe response frames from the respective access points.
Yet, Cariou in view of Wang and further in view of Chitrakar discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the first SP is identified based on first target wake time (TWT) configuration information included in a first beacon frame received from the first AP, and the second SP is identified based on second TWT configuration information included in a second beacon frame or probe response frame received from the second AP because Chitrakar carries the multi-band target wake time element inside the beacon frame, and that element indicates service periods for each of several basic service sets, so the station derives its own service period and the service period of a further basic service set from beacon-carried target wake time configuration information; Chitrakar further places the corresponding capability elements in beacon and probe response frames, confirming that both frame types carry this configuration (Chitrakar, para [0108], “The AP includes the MB TWT element 1720 in the Beacon frame to indicate that AP has allocated broadcast TWT SPs on all 3 bands for the STA starting at time 1722.” … para [0058], “The Concurrent Multi- b and Capabilities element is included in the Beacon frames, Probe Response frames, Association Response frame, etc. by an AP to advertise its multi- band capabilities.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify both service periods from beacon-carried target wake time configuration as taught by Chitrakar, because Chitrakar delivers service period allocations for several basic service sets in the beacon and delivers related capability information in beacon and probe response frames, and using an already-transmitted management frame to convey scheduling parameters avoids added signaling while giving the station in Cariou the very start-time and duration values it needs to compare two service periods.
Regarding claim 3, although Cariou in view of Chitrakar teaches a negotiated service period, beacon-carried target wake time information identifying a second access point's service period, and a report frame sent to the access point indicating the overlap: (Cariou, para. [0030], [0172]; Chitrakar, para. [0108], [0110]), Cariou in view of Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose report content carrying information on the second access point or the second service period's target wake time configuration.
Yet, Cariou in view of Chitrakar and further in view of Wang discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement report frame includes at least one of information on the second AP or second TWT configuration information for the second SP because Wang's report element is built from an identifier field naming the station or set of stations concerned together with measured parameter fields whose types are expressly enumerated, so the report carries identifying information about the other party to the observed interference in addition to the measured values, which reads on report content that includes information on the second access point (Wang, para [0200], “Each field may contain measured interference and parameters of one or more STAs and may include but is not limited to the following subfields: an ID field 1510, a ReFire Measurement Types or Parameters Types subfield 1511, and a ReFire Measured Parameters subfield 1512.”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to populate the report frame with identifying and parameter information as taught by Wang, because Wang's report element pairs an identifier field with the measured parameters, and an access point that receives only a bare indication of interference cannot act on it, whereas an access point told which device and which measured values are involved can target its rescheduling of the service period negotiated in Cariou.
Regarding claim 4, in spite of the fact that Cariou in view of Chitrakar teaches a negotiated service period, beacon-carried target wake time information for a second access point's service period, and a report frame indicating an overlap sent to the access point: (Cariou, para. [0030], [0172]; Chitrakar, para. [0108]), Cariou in view of Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose report transmission timing that is either before the service periods on a predicted overlap or after a service period on a determined overlap.
Yet, Cariou in view of Chitrakar and further in view of Wang discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement report frame is transmitted before the first SP or the second SP if the first SP is predicted to overlap with the second SP, or the measurement report frame is transmitted after the first SP or the second SP if the first SP is determined to overlap with the second SP because Wang's reporting station follows timing rules set out in the reporting request when it sends the report element, and Wang further shows the overlap determination itself being made only after the length of time specified in the header has ended and the measurement statistics database then being updated, so the report reflecting a determined overlap is generated and sent after the interval in which the overlap occurred, satisfying the second recited timing branch under the broadest reasonable reading (Wang, para [0206], “The monitoring STA may report the ReFIReM easurement report to the requesting STA according to the rules specified in the ReFIRe Measurement Reporting request, using a frame containing the ReFIRe Measurement Report element, which may be implemented as shown in the example of FIG. 15.” … para [0096], “If the channel is busy then reception failure Case 2 as described herein has occurred 912a, and the ReFire measurement statistics database may then be updated 915.”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to schedule the report according to the request rules taught by Wang, because Wang lets the requesting device dictate when the report is delivered and shows the overlap being resolved and recorded only after the specified reception interval has elapsed; a skilled artisan applying this to Cariou's service period negotiation would naturally send the report after the interval whose overlap was observed, since the observation is not complete until then.
Regarding claim 5, even though Cariou in view of Chitrakar teaches a negotiated service period, beacon-carried target wake time information for a second access point's service period, and a report frame indicating an overlap sent to the access point: (Cariou, para. [0030], [0172]; Chitrakar, para. [0108]), Cariou in view of Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose receipt of a measurement request frame from the access point that triggers transmission of the report.
Yet, Cariou in view of Chitrakar and further in view of Wang discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving a measurement request frame from the first AP because Wang has the access point send the station a frame carrying a measurement and reporting request element, which is the request frame received from the associated access point that sets up the subsequent measurement (Wang, para [0194], “FIG. 13 is a diagram of an example ReFIRe measurement reporting request 1300 that may be used by an AP, relay STA, RAP, or PCP to request one or more STAs to conduct ReFIRe measurement and reporting.”).
Moreover, Wang discloses wherein the measurement request frame indicates an overlap between the first SP and the second SP, and the measurement report frame is transmitted when the measurement request frame is received. because Wang expressly conditions the report on the received request: the station that receives the frame containing the request element responds with a report frame, and the reported parameter types include statistics of the reception failure cases that Wang attributes to packet overlap, so the request identifies the overlap-related measurement and the report is returned in response to it (Wang, para [0203], “The STA that receives the frame containing the ReFIRe Measurement Reporting Request element may respond with a frame containing the ReFIRe Measurement Report frame or a frame containing a ReFIReM easurement Report element with the status code “ SUCCESS ”” … para [0204], “During the measurement period, the STA may record the following parameters: instantaneous measurement of an RSSI /R CPI level change during the reception of the received packet”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the access point solicit the report with a request frame as taught by Wang, because Wang shows the access point specifying what is to be measured and the station answering with a matching report; applying that request-and-respond discipline to Cariou's access point, which controls the service period schedule, lets the access point collect overlap data only when it needs it and thereby limits unnecessary uplink traffic from a power-saving station.
Regarding claim 6, in spite of the fact that Cariou in view of Wang teaches a negotiated service period, beacon-carried target wake time information for a second access point's service period, and a report frame indicating an overlap sent to the access point: (Cariou, para. [0030], [0172]; Wang, para. [0200]), Cariou in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose receipt of a further beacon carrying reconfiguration information for the first service period, identification of the changed service period, and communication in it.
Yet, Cariou in view of Wang and further in view of Chitrakar discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving a third beacon frame including TWT reconfiguration information for the first SP from the first AP because Chitrakar sends a beacon carrying the multi-band target wake time element that states the service periods allocated to the station along with their start time, so a later beacon carrying a revised element delivers updated service period parameters to the station (Chitrakar, para [0139], “The transmitter, in operation, may further transmit a Beacon frame on the Primary band, the Beacon frame comprising an indication of Target Wake Time ( TWT) Service Period ( SP) allocated to the STA on at least one of the Secondary bands.”).
Moreover, Chitrakar discloses identifying a changed first SP based on the TWT reconfiguration information and because Chitrakar's station reads the indicated start time from the beacon-carried element and aligns its radio state to that indicated service period, so a revised indication yields a revised service period that the station identifies and adopts (Chitrakar, para [0108], “At the indicated TWT SP start time 1722, the STA transition its radio on all 3 bands to the Awake state and transmits the PS - Poll frames in each Band”).
Furthermore, Chitrakar discloses: performing communication in the changed first SP because Chitrakar's station, having woken at the indicated service period start time, proceeds with the multi-band transmission exchange with the access point during that service period and returns to the doze state at its end, which is communication carried out in the service period as reconfigured by the beacon (Chitrakar, para [0108], “The AP then proceeds with the multi -b and transmission 1720. The STA may move back to the doze state at the end of the TWT SP on each band”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deliver revised service period parameters in a later beacon and to operate in the revised service period as taught by Chitrakar, because Chitrakar already uses the beacon to announce the service periods allocated to the station and has the station wake at the announced start time; once the access point in Cariou learns from the report that the current service period collides with another network's, re-announcing a shifted service period in the next beacon is the straightforward corrective step, and it places the station's awake interval where the collision no longer arises.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar (US 2021/0360522 A1) in view of Wang (US 2020/0136758 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chitrakar discloses: A method of a first access point (AP), comprising: transmitting a first beacon frame including first target wake time (TWP) configuration information for a first service period (SP), because Chitrakar teaches an access point that sends a beacon carrying an element announcing the target wake time service period allocated to a station, including the service period start time: (Chitrakar, para [0139] “The transmitter, in operation, may further transmit a Beacon frame on the Primary band, the Beacon frame comprising an indication of Target Wake Time ( TWT) Service Period ( SP) allocated to the STA on at least one of the Secondary bands.”)
Furthermore, Chitrakar discloses: transmitting a second beacon frame including TWT reconfiguration information for the first SP, because Chitrakar teaches repeated beacon transmission at each target beacon transmission time carrying the service period element, so a later beacon delivers revised service period parameters that the station adopts by waking at the newly indicated start time: (Chitrakar, para [0108] “The AP includes the MB TWT element 1720 in the Beacon frame to indicate that AP has allocated broadcast TWT SPs on all 3 bands for the STA starting at time 1722.”)
Moreover, Chitrakar discloses: wherein the first SP changed by the TWT reconfiguration information does not overlap with the second SP, because Chitrakar teaches service periods placed on separately identified bands and basic service sets by the announced element, so the announced allocation separates the station's awake interval from the interval used by another basic service set: (Chitrakar, para [0110] “The MB TWT element 1800 is defined to negotiate /i ndicate TWT Service Periods ( SP) in a different band ( as indicated in the Band ID field 1810) from the band on which the element is transmitted.”)
Although Chitrakar teaches an access point announcing target wake time service period allocations to a station in beacon frames, repeating the announcement at each beacon transmission time so revised parameters place the station's awake interval on a designated band: (Chitrakar, [0139], [0108], [0110]), Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose receipt at the access point of a measurement report frame from the station indicating an overlap between the first service period and a second service period configured by another access point.
Nevertheless, Chitrakar in view of Wang discloses receiving a measurement report frame from a first STA indicating an overlap between the first SP and a second SP configured by a second AP because Wang teaches Wang has the access point receive back from the monitored station a report frame whose element carries the station's measured parameters, and those parameters include the detection of an overlapped packet during a reception interval together with the time the overlap was detected, so the access point receives a station-originated report identifying an overlap affecting the station's scheduled reception (Wang, para [0207], “STA 1601 may then send a frame with a ReFire Measurement and Reporting element 1617 to AP 1602 ( or other STA).”; Wang, para [0219], “the reception failure details field may indicate the time at which the received packet was corrupted, for example, the time at which an overlapped packet was detected during the reception of the packet.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the access point of Chitrakar receive the station-originated overlap report taught by Wang, because Chitrakar's access point is the entity that fixes the service period announced in the beacon and can shift it in a later beacon, while Wang supplies the report frame by which the station tells the access point that an overlapping transmission spoiled a reception and when it happened; feeding that measured information back to the scheduling access point lets it move the announced service period away from the reported conflict instead of leaving the station to absorb repeated collisions
Regarding claim 8, although Chitrakar teaches an access point that announces service period allocations in beacon frames, revises them in a later beacon, and receives a station report indicating an observed overlap: (Chitrakar, para. [0139], [0108]), Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose report content carrying information on the second access point or the second service period's target wake time configuration.
Yet, Chitrakar in view of Wang discloses The method according to claim 7, wherein the measurement report frame includes at least one of information on the second AP or second TWT configuration information for the second SP because Wang's report element is composed of an identifier field naming the station or set of stations to which the measurement pertains together with fields specifying the parameter types and their measured values, so the report delivered to the access point identifies the other party involved in the reported interference as well as the measured data (Wang, para [0200], “Each field may contain measured interference and parameters of one or more STAs and may include but is not limited to the following subfields: an ID field 1510, a ReFire Measurement Types or Parameters Types subfield 1511, and a ReFire Measured Parameters subfield 1512.”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the identifier and parameter fields of Wang's report in the frame received by Chitrakar's access point, because an access point that learns only that interference occurred cannot tell which schedule to avoid, whereas Wang's report names the device concerned and the measured parameters, giving the access point the specific information it needs to re-announce a service period clear of the reported conflict.
Regarding claim 9, even though Chitrakar teaches an access point that announces service period allocations in beacon frames, revises them in a later beacon, and receives a station report indicating an observed overlap: (Chitrakar, para. [0139], [0108]), Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose report receipt timing that is either before the service periods on a predicted overlap or after a service period on a determined overlap.
Yet, Chitrakar in view of Wang discloses The method according to claim 7, wherein the measurement report frame is received before the first SP or the second SP if the first SP is predicted to overlap with the second SP at the first STA, or the measurement report frame is transmitted after the first SP or the second SP if the first SP is determined to overlap with the second SP at the first STA because Wang delivers the report to the requesting device under the timing rules carried in the reporting request, and shows the station resolving the overlap and updating its measurement record only after the reception interval specified in the header has ended, so a report of a determined overlap reaches the access point after the interval in which the overlap occurred, meeting the second recited timing branch on the broadest reasonable reading (Wang, para [0206], “The monitoring STA may report the ReFIReM easurement report to the requesting STA according to the rules specified in the ReFIRe Measurement Reporting request, using a frame containing the ReFIRe Measurement Report element, which may be implemented as shown in the example of FIG. 15.” … para [0096], “If the channel is busy then reception failure Case 2 as described herein has occurred 912a, and the ReFire measurement statistics database may then be updated 915.”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to govern report delivery by the request rules taught by Wang when applying Wang's reporting to Chitrakar's access point, because Wang lets the requesting access point dictate when the report arrives and shows the overlap determination completing only after the specified reception interval; a skilled artisan would therefore expect the report of a determined overlap after that interval, which is exactly when the access point can act on it in preparing the next beacon.
Regarding claim 10, although Chitrakar teaches an access point that announces service period allocations in beacon frames, revises them in a later beacon, and receives a station report indicating an observed overlap: (Chitrakar, para. [0139], [0108]), Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose transmission of a measurement request frame and receipt of the report as its response.
Yet, Chitrakar in view of Wang discloses The method according to claim 7, further comprising: in response to determining that the first SP and the second SP overlap, transmitting a measurement request frame from a first STA indicating an overlap between the first SP and a second SP configured by a second AP; and transmitting a second beacon frame including TWT reconfiguration information for the first SP, because Wang has the access point transmit a frame carrying the measurement and reporting request element to ask one or more stations to carry out the measurement and reporting, which is the access point's outgoing request frame prompting the measurement of the interference condition of interest (Wang, para [0194], “FIG. 13 is a diagram of an example ReFIRe measurement reporting request 1300 that may be used by an AP, relay STA, RAP, or PCP to request one or more STAs to conduct ReFIRe measurement and reporting.”).
Moreover, Wang discloses wherein the measurement report frame is received as a response to the measurement request frame because Wang expressly makes the report the answer to the request: the station that receives the frame containing the request element responds with a report frame, so the access point receives the report as the response to the request it sent (Wang, para [0203], “The STA that receives the frame containing the ReFIRe Measurement Reporting Request element may respond with a frame containing the ReFIRe Measurement Report frame or a frame containing a ReFIReM easurement Report element with the status code “ SUCCESS ””).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Wang's request-and-response measurement exchange to Chitrakar's access point, because Chitrakar's access point sets and revises the announced service period and therefore benefits from measurements taken on demand, and Wang shows the access point specifying the measurement in a request frame and the station answering with a matching report; soliciting the report only when the access point suspects a scheduling conflict keeps uplink overhead from a power-saving station low while still supplying the data needed to reschedule.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou (US 2021/0037464 A1) in view of Noh (US 2020/0045637 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2020/0136758 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Cariou discloses: A method of a first station (STA), comprising: identifying a first service period (SP) configured by a first access point (AP) associated with the first STA, because Cariou teaches a station that negotiates a target wake time service period with its associated access point and tracks its start time and duration, so the station knows the interval during which it is awake for communication with that access point: (Cariou, para [0030] “[0030] In such examples of late termination, a TWT negotiation system can facilitate that during the TWT negotiation, multiple modes of operation can be agreed on between the STA and the AP.”)
Although Cariou teaches a station that negotiates a target wake time service period with its associated access point, knowing its start time and duration, and signals scheduling constraints on that service period back to the access point: (Cariou, [0030], [0172], [0037]), Cariou does not explicitly disclose detecting overlapped basic service set (OBSS) interference in the first SP.
However, Cariou in view of Noh discloses detecting overlapped basic service set (OBSS) interference in the first SP because Noh has the station decode a received frame, compare its color information against the color associated with its own basic service set, and on a mismatch identify the frame as an inter-basic-service-set frame, and further measure the received power of such an overlapping-basic-service-set frame against a detection level; that measurement of a frame originating from a different basic service set is detection of overlapped basic service set interference at the station (Noh, para [0121], “When the color information in the HE SIG-A field does not match the color information associated with myBSS (i.e., the frame originates from a different BSS as that of the STA), the STA identifies the frame as an inter- B SS frame.”; Noh, para [0117], “when an STA receives a frame, the STA determines that the received frame is an inter- frame (o r inter- BSS frame). The STA may then compare the measured received power to the OBSS PD level.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Noh's inter-basic-service-set detection at the station of Cariou, because Noh shows a station distinguishing frames from a foreign basic service set by their color field and measuring the received power of those frames; a station that is awake only during a negotiated service period has a strong interest in knowing whether the traffic disturbing that interval belongs to its own network or to a neighboring one, since only the latter can be addressed by rescheduling the interval
Even though Cariou in view of Noh teaches a station that negotiates a target wake time service period with its associated access point, knowing its start time and duration, and signals scheduling constraints on that service period back to the access point: (Cariou, [0030], [0172], [0037], Noh, para [0121], para [0117]), Cariou in view of Noh does not explicitly disclose Aug. 21, 2025 transmitting a measurement report frame indicating occurrence of the OBSS interference to the first AP.
Nevertheless, Cariou in view of Noh and further in view of Wang discloses and transmitting a measurement report frame indicating occurrence of the OBSS interference to the first AP because Wang teaches Wang has the station send the access point a report frame whose element carries the measured interference parameters recorded during the monitoring period, including statistics of the reception failure cases Wang attributes to packet overlap, so the frame reports to the access point that interfering transmissions occurred at the station (Wang, para [0207], “STA 1601 may then send a frame with a ReFire Measurement and Reporting element 1617 to AP 1602 ( or other STA).”; Wang, para [0200], “Each field may contain measured interference and parameters of one or more STAs and may include but is not limited to the following subfields: an ID field 1510, a ReFire Measurement Types or Parameters Types subfield 1511, and a ReFire Measured Parameters subfield 1512.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Wang's measurement report frame to the combination of Cariou and Noh, because Noh's station derives interference measurements but keeps them local, and Wang supplies the report element and frame by which measured interference parameters are conveyed to the access point; since the access point in Cariou is the entity that sets the service period, forwarding the interference observations to it converts a purely local measurement into information the network can act upon
Regarding claim 13, in spite of the fact that Cariou in view of Noh teaches a negotiated target wake time service period, station-side detection and measurement of transmissions from a neighboring basic service set, and a report frame conveying the measured interference to the access point: (Cariou, para. [0030]; Noh, para. [0121], [0117]), Cariou in view of Noh does not explicitly disclose a reason code in the report frame indicating occurrence of the overlapped basic service set interference.
Yet, Cariou in view of Noh and further in view of Wang discloses The method according to claim 11, wherein the measurement report frame includes a reason code, and the reason code indicates occurrence of the OBSS interference because Wang's report frame carries a status code together with a parameter-types subfield that encodes which condition is being reported, and the enumerated types include statistics of the reception failure cases Wang attributes to packet overlap, so the frame carries a coded value signifying that interference from an overlapping transmission occurred, which is a reason code indicating the interference occurrence (Wang, para [0203], “respond with a frame containing the ReFIRe Measurement Report frame or a frame containing a ReFIReM easurement Report element with the status code “ SUCCESS ”” … para [0200], “The indication of the types of parameters may be encoded as a bitmap or other type of encoding to indicate multiple parameter types, such as an RSSI/R CPI level change, a cross - correlation or auto - correlation of STF and LTF, a ReFIRe Score, a DRM, a total number”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carry the interference indication as a coded value in the report frame as taught by Wang, because Wang already encodes both a status code and the reported parameter types in the frame, and a short coded field is a compact and unambiguous way to tell the access point in Cariou which condition triggered the report, sparing the access point from inferring the cause from raw measurement values.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou (US 2021/0037464 A1) in view of Noh (US 2020/0045637 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2020/0136758 A1) and further in view of Chitrakar (US 2021/0360522 A1).
Regarding claim 12, although Cariou in view of Noh and further in view of Wang teaches a negotiated target wake time service period, station-side detection of transmissions from a neighboring basic service set, and a report frame conveying the measured interference to the access point: (Cariou, para. [0030]; Noh, para. [0121], [0117]; Wang, para. [0207], [0200]), Cariou in view of Noh and further in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose identification of the first service period from target wake time configuration information carried in a beacon frame received from the access point.
Yet, Cariou in view of Noh and further in view of Wang and further in view of Chitrakar discloses The method according to claim 11, wherein the first SP is identified based on first target wake time (TWT) configuration information included in a first beacon frame received from the first AP, and the OBSS interference is caused by a communication node belonging to an OBSS because Chitrakar delivers the target wake time service period allocation to the station inside the beacon frame, stating the allocated service periods and their start time, and the station reads that beacon-carried configuration to identify and enter its service period; the interference source in the base combination is already a node of a different basic service set identified by its non-matching color (Chitrakar, para [0108], “The AP includes the MB TWT element 1720 in the Beacon frame to indicate that AP has allocated broadcast TWT SPs on all 3 bands for the STA starting at time 1722.” … para [0139], “The transmitter, in operation, may further transmit a Beacon frame on the Primary band, the Beacon frame comprising an indication of Target Wake Time ( TWT) Service Period ( SP) allocated to the STA on at least one of the Secondary bands.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to convey the service period configuration in a beacon frame as taught by Chitrakar, because Chitrakar announces the allocated service periods and their start time in the beacon that the station already wakes to receive, so the station in Cariou obtains its service period parameters without any added exchange, and beacon delivery also lets the access point revise those parameters for all affected stations at once.
Regarding claim 14, even though Cariou in view of Noh and further in view of Wang teaches a negotiated target wake time service period, station-side detection of transmissions from a neighboring basic service set, and a report frame conveying the measured interference to the access point: (Cariou, para. [0030]; Noh, para. [0121], [0117]; Wang, para. [0207]), Cariou in view of Noh and further in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose receipt of a further beacon carrying reconfiguration information for the first service period, identification of the changed service period, and communication in it free of the interference.
Yet, Cariou in view of Noh and further in view of Wang and further in view of Chitrakar discloses The method according to claim 11, further comprising: receiving a second beacon frame including TWT reconfiguration information for the first SP from the first AP because Chitrakar has the access point transmit, at each beacon transmission time, a beacon carrying the element that states the service periods allocated to the station and their start time, so a subsequent beacon delivers revised service period parameters to the station (Chitrakar, para [0108], “The AP includes the MB TWT element 1720 in the Beacon frame to indicate that AP has allocated broadcast TWT SPs on all 3 bands for the STA starting at time 1722.”).
Moreover, Chitrakar discloses identifying a changed first SP based on the TWT reconfiguration information; and performing communication in the changed first SP, because Chitrakar's station reads the start time announced in the beacon-carried element, brings its radio to the awake state at that indicated time, and then carries out the transmission exchange with the access point during that service period, returning to the doze state at its end, so a revised announcement yields a revised service period in which the station identifies and communicates (Chitrakar, para [0108], “At the indicated TWT SP start time 1722, the STA transition its radio on all 3 bands to the Awake state and transmits the PS - Poll frames in each Band” … para [0108], “The AP then proceeds with the multi -b and transmission 1720. The STA may move back to the doze state at the end of the TWT SP on each band”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-announce revised service period parameters in a later beacon and have the station operate in the revised interval as taught by Chitrakar, because Chitrakar already uses the recurring beacon to state the allocated service periods and start times and shows the station waking at the announced time and exchanging frames there; once the access point in Cariou has been told through the report that interference is spoiling the current interval, shifting the announced service period in the next beacon moves the station's activity to a quieter time, and Chitrakar's own placement of service periods on separately identified bands and basic service sets shows the same element being used to keep awake intervals apart from other traffic.
Thus, Cariou and Noh are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights