DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application 18/887,162 filed on September 17th, 2024.
Claim Status
This office action is based upon claims received on 09/17/2024, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6 – 10, 14 – 15, and 20 are rejected.
Claims 2, 4 – 5, 11 – 13, and 16 – 19 are objected to.
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 12/17/2024 and 02/27/2026 are 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 3 claim 3 recites the limitation “includes BSSID information of APs sensed by the one of the plurality of candidate shared AP.” on Line 3 and ends with a period. However, the limitation is immediately followed by another limitation within the same claim number. It is unclear if the period at the end of the first sentence is an error wherein instead of the period it should have been a semicolon. Alternatively, it is also plausible that the period is intentional, thereby causing the understanding of the claim to be limited to the limitations provided before the first period only (as presented in the corresponding method claim 17). Therefore, if the first period after the first limitation in claim 3 is intentional, (in addition to considering the understanding of claim 17), the second limitation in claim 3, after the first period, (“the information on interferential APs of the one of the plurality of candidate shared APs further includes BSS color information of the shared AP”) will be ignored and/or canceled.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation “the determining one or more shared APs from the plurality of candidate shared APs based on the responses:
determining one or more shared APs based on the BSS color information of the plurality of candidate shared APs and BSS color lists of the plurality of candidate shared APs such that BSS color information of none of the shared APs is included in BSS color lists of other shared APs.” on lines 8 – 10. It is not clear if the phrases in the limitations are to be understood as a continuation one of the other, wherein a statement such as “further comprises” or “further includes” is expected to be before the colon and at the end of the first phrase. If the two phrases in the claim limitations are intended to be independent of each other, it renders the claim limitations as a whole unclear.
Claim 20 is the corresponding method claim to claim 6, and therefore, is rejected similarly as it comprises the same claim limitations with the same statements.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites on Line 2 “information of on interferential APs”. The preposition “of” appears to be incorrect in this limitation.
Claim 18 recites on Line 2, “the ID information the one or more shared APs”. The limitation appears to be missing the preposition “of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. [US 20240137980 A1] hereinafter Ajami, and further in view of Cherian et al. [US 20200076551 A1] hereinafter Cherian, and Saad et al. [US 20240243862 A1] hereinafter Saad.
Regarding claim 1, Ajami teaches a sharing access point (AP) (Ajami: Fig. 2, ¶ 58; in view of AP 102-a wherein AP 102-a may be an example of an AP 102, such as the first AP 102 or a TXOP-sharing AP 102 (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1)), comprising:
a transmitter (Ajami: Fig. 12, ¶ 119-122; in view of wireless communication device that comprises a transmitter) configured to transmit a first trigger frame for announcing a transmission opportunity (TXOP) to be shared (Ajami: ¶ 47; wherein the sharing AP 102 may transmit one or more spatial reuse poll frames as part of determining one or more spatial reuse criteria and selecting one or more other APs 102 to be shared APs 102. According to the polling, the sharing AP 102 may receive responses from one or more of the polled APs 102. In some specific examples, the sharing AP 102 may transmit a coordinated AP TXOP indication (CTI) frame (i.e., a trigger frame that requires a response from other devices) to other APs 102 that indicates time and frequency of resources of the TXOP that can be shared (i.e., a the CTI frame announces a transmission opportunity (TXOP) that can be shared));
a receiver (Ajami: Fig. 12, ¶ 119-122; in view of wireless communication device that comprises a receiver) configured to receive responses from a plurality of candidate shared APs (Ajami: ¶ 47, ¶ 58; wherein the sharing AP 102 may select one or more candidate APs 102 (i.e., a plurality of APs) upon receiving a coordinated AP 102 TXOP request (CTR) frame from a respective candidate AP 102 that indicates a desire by the respective AP 102 to participate in the TXOP (i.e., the sharing AP receives a response from each of the respective candidate AP 102s (i.e., the one or more TXOP-shared AP 102s))), wherein each response corresponds to one of the plurality of candidate shared APs (Ajami: ¶ 47, ¶ 58; wherein the sharing AP 102 may select one or more candidate APs 102 upon receiving a coordinated AP 102 TXOP request (CTR) frame from a respective candidate AP 102 that indicates a desire by the respective AP 102 to participate in the TXOP (i.e., the sharing AP receives a response from the each respective candidate AP 102 (i.e., the one or more TXOP-shared AP 102s))), and includes information on interferential APs of the one of the plurality of candidate shared APs (Ajami: ¶ 47; wherein the poll responses or CTR frames may include a power indication, for example, an RX power or RSSI measured by the respective AP. In some other examples, the sharing AP 102 may directly measure potential interference of a service supported (such as UL transmission) at one or more APs 102, and select the shared APs 102 based on the measured potential interference (i.e., the RSSI measured by the respective AP or the potential interference directly measured by the sharing AP is considered information on interferential APs of the one of the plurality of candidate shared APs)); and
a processor (Ajami: Fig. 12, ¶ 119-122; in view of wireless communication device that comprises a processor) configured to determine one or more shared APs from the plurality of candidate shared APs based on the responses (Ajami: ¶ 47, ¶ 58; wherein the sharing AP 102 generally selects the APs 102 (i.e., the sharing AP 102 selects the TXOP-shared AP 102s based on the responses received) to participate in coordinated spatial reuse such that it still protects its own transmissions (which may be referred to as primary transmissions) to and from the STAs 104 in its BSS. The selected APs 102 may then be allocated resources during the TXOP).
Ajami does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit a second trigger frame which includes identity (ID) information of the one or more shared APs.
Referring to the invention of Cherian, Cherian teaches wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit a second trigger frame (Cherian: Fig. 3, ¶ 148 – 150; wherein first AP 105-a may then transmit a MAP-trigger 320 (i.e., a second trigger frame) in the second portion of the TxOP 317, which may indicate to each of the other APs 105 that multi-AP coordinated transmission 325 may commence).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second trigger frame teachings of Cherian into the Multi-AP sharing TXOP teachings of Ajami in order to inform the other APs that multi-AP coordinated transmission will commence and to improve reliability, synchronization, and adaptation in multi-AP TXOP sharing, enabling efficient, low-latency, and coordinated multi-user communication.
Ajami in view of Cherian do not explicitly disclose that the second trigger frame includes identity (ID) information of the one or more shared APs.
Referring to the invention of Saad, Saad teaches trigger frame which includes identity (ID) information of the one or more shared APs (Saad: Fig. 24, ¶ 192; wherein the Sharing AP (AP1) 2402a in the coordinated AP set sends a MAP Trigger frame 2404, which may contain the following information: (1) IDs of the shared APs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Saad teachings of sending the shared AP IDs in a trigger frame into the combined invention of the second trigger frame teachings of Cherian in the Multi-AP sharing TXOP teachings of Ajami in order to achieve explicit participation control, precise slot scheduling, minimal signaling overhead, and improved latency management in multi-AP TXOP sharing.
Regarding claim 7, Ajami in view of Cherian and Saad teaches the sharing AP of claim 1, wherein
when more than one shared APs are determined, the more than one shared APs will share the same frequency and time resources of the TXOP (Ajami: ¶ 47; wherein the sharing AP 102 may transmit a coordinated AP TXOP indication (CTI) frame to other APs 102 (i.e., more than one shared APs) that indicates time and frequency of resources of the TXOP that can be shared).
Regarding claim 8, Ajami teaches a shared access point (AP) (Ajami: Fig. 2, ¶ 58; in view of AP 102-b wherein the AP 102-b may be an example of an AP 102, such as the second AP 102 or a TXOP-shared AP 102 (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1)), comprising:
a receiver (Ajami: Fig. 12, ¶ 119-122; in view of wireless communication device that comprises a receiver) configured to receive a first trigger frame for announcing a transmission opportunity (TXOP) to be shared (Ajami: ¶ 47; wherein the sharing AP 102 may transmit one or more spatial reuse poll frames as part of determining one or more spatial reuse criteria and selecting one or more other APs 102 to be shared APs 102. According to the polling, the sharing AP 102 may receive responses from one or more of the polled APs 102. In some specific examples, the sharing AP 102 may transmit a coordinated AP TXOP indication (CTI) frame (i.e., a trigger frame that requires a response from other devices) to other APs 102 that indicates time and frequency of resources of the TXOP that can be shared (i.e., a the CTI frame announces a transmission opportunity (TXOP) that can be shared)); and
a transmitter (Ajami: Fig. 12, ¶ 119-122; in view of wireless communication device that comprises a transmitter) configured to transmit a response to the first trigger frame (Ajami: ¶ 47, ¶ 58; wherein the sharing AP 102 may select one or more candidate APs 102 (i.e., a plurality of APs) upon receiving a coordinated AP 102 TXOP request (CTR) frame from a respective candidate AP 102 that indicates a desire by the respective AP 102 to participate in the TXOP (i.e., the sharing AP receives a response from each of the respective candidate AP 102s (i.e., the one or more TXOP-shared AP 102s))), wherein the response includes information on interferential APs of the shared AP (Ajami: ¶ 47; wherein the poll responses or CTR frames may include a power indication, for example, an RX power or RSSI measured by the respective AP. In some other examples, the sharing AP 102 may directly measure potential interference of a service supported (such as UL transmission) at one or more APs 102, and select the shared APs 102 based on the measured potential interference (i.e., the RSSI measured by the respective AP or the potential interference directly measured by the sharing AP is considered information on interferential APs of the one of the plurality of candidate shared APs)).
Ajami does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiver is further configured to receive a second trigger frame which includes identity (ID) information of the shared AP.
Referring to the invention of Cherian, Cherian teaches wherein the receiver is further configured to receive a second trigger frame (Cherian: Fig. 3, ¶ 148 – 150; wherein first AP 105-a may then transmit a MAP-trigger 320 (i.e., a second trigger frame) in the second portion of the TxOP 317, which may indicate to each of the other APs 105 that multi-AP coordinated transmission 325 may commence (i.e., the shared APs receive the second trigger frame from the sharing AP)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second trigger frame teachings of Cherian into the Multi-AP sharing TXOP teachings of Ajami in order to inform the other APs that multi-AP coordinated transmission will commence and to improve reliability, synchronization, and adaptation in multi-AP TXOP sharing, enabling efficient, low-latency, and coordinated multi-user communication.
Ajami in view of Cherian do not explicitly disclose that the second trigger frame includes identity (ID) information of the shared AP.
Referring to the invention of Saad, Saad teaches trigger frame which includes identity (ID) information of the shared AP (Saad: Fig. 24, ¶ 192; wherein the Sharing AP (AP1) 2402a in the coordinated AP set sends a MAP Trigger frame 2404, which may contain the following information: (1) IDs of the shared APs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Saad teachings of sending the shared AP IDs in a trigger frame into the combined invention of the second trigger frame teachings of Cherian in the Multi-AP sharing TXOP teachings of Ajami in order to achieve explicit participation control, precise slot scheduling, minimal signaling overhead, and improved latency management in multi-AP TXOP sharing.
Regarding claim 15, Ajami teaches a method for wireless communication at a sharing access point (AP) (Ajami: Fig. 2, ¶ 58; in view of AP 102-a wherein AP 102-a may be an example of an AP 102, such as the first AP 102 or a TXOP-sharing AP 102 (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1)), comprising:
transmitting a first trigger frame for announcing a transmission opportunity (TXOP) to be shared (Ajami: ¶ 47; wherein the sharing AP 102 may transmit one or more spatial reuse poll frames as part of determining one or more spatial reuse criteria and selecting one or more other APs 102 to be shared APs 102. According to the polling, the sharing AP 102 may receive responses from one or more of the polled APs 102. In some specific examples, the sharing AP 102 may transmit a coordinated AP TXOP indication (CTI) frame (i.e., a trigger frame that requires a response from other devices) to other APs 102 that indicates time and frequency of resources of the TXOP that can be shared (i.e., a the CTI frame announces a transmission opportunity (TXOP) that can be shared));
receiving responses from a plurality of candidate shared APs (Ajami: ¶ 47, ¶ 58; wherein the sharing AP 102 may select one or more candidate APs 102 (i.e., a plurality of APs) upon receiving a coordinated AP 102 TXOP request (CTR) frame from a respective candidate AP 102 that indicates a desire by the respective AP 102 to participate in the TXOP (i.e., the sharing AP receives a response from each of the respective candidate AP 102s (i.e., the one or more TXOP-shared AP 102s))), wherein each response corresponds to one of the plurality of candidate shared APs (Ajami: ¶ 47, ¶ 58; wherein the sharing AP 102 may select one or more candidate APs 102 upon receiving a coordinated AP 102 TXOP request (CTR) frame from a respective candidate AP 102 that indicates a desire by the respective AP 102 to participate in the TXOP (i.e., the sharing AP receives a response from the each respective candidate AP 102 (i.e., the one or more TXOP-shared AP 102s))), and includes information on interferential APs of the one of the plurality of candidate shared APs (Ajami: ¶ 47; wherein the poll responses or CTR frames may include a power indication, for example, an RX power or RSSI measured by the respective AP. In some other examples, the sharing AP 102 may directly measure potential interference of a service supported (such as UL transmission) at one or more APs 102, and select the shared APs 102 based on the measured potential interference (i.e., the RSSI measured by the respective AP or the potential interference directly measured by the sharing AP is considered information on interferential APs of the one of the plurality of candidate shared APs)); and
determining one or more shared APs from the plurality of candidate shared APs based on the responses (Ajami: ¶ 47, ¶ 58; wherein the sharing AP 102 generally selects the APs 102 (i.e., the sharing AP 102 selects the TXOP-shared AP 102s based on the responses received) to participate in coordinated spatial reuse such that it still protects its own transmissions (which may be referred to as primary transmissions) to and from the STAs 104 in its BSS. The selected APs 102 may then be allocated resources during the TXOP).
Ajami does not explicitly disclose transmitting a second trigger frame which includes information related to identity (ID)s of the one or more shared APs.
Referring to the invention of Cherian, Cherian teaches transmitting a second trigger frame (Cherian: Fig. 3, ¶ 148 – 150; wherein first AP 105-a may then transmit a MAP-trigger 320 (i.e., a second trigger frame) in the second portion of the TxOP 317, which may indicate to each of the other APs 105 that multi-AP coordinated transmission 325 may commence).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second trigger frame teachings of Cherian into the Multi-AP sharing TXOP teachings of Ajami in order to inform the other APs that multi-AP coordinated transmission will commence and to improve reliability, synchronization, and adaptation in multi-AP TXOP sharing, enabling efficient, low-latency, and coordinated multi-user communication.
Ajami in view of Cherian do not explicitly disclose that the second trigger frame includes information related to identity (ID)s of the one or more shared APs.
Referring to the invention of Saad, Saad teaches trigger frame which includes information related to identity (ID)s of the one or more shared APs (Saad: Fig. 24, ¶ 192; wherein the Sharing AP (AP1) 2402a in the coordinated AP set sends a MAP Trigger frame 2404, which may contain the following information: (1) IDs of the shared APs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Saad teachings of sending the shared AP IDs in a trigger frame into the combined invention of the second trigger frame teachings of Cherian in the Multi-AP sharing TXOP teachings of Ajami in order to achieve explicit participation control, precise slot scheduling, minimal signaling overhead, and improved latency management in multi-AP TXOP sharing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al., Cherian et al., and Saad et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chun et al. [US 20250167944 A1] hereinafter Chun.
Regarding claim 9, Ajami in view of Cherian and Saad teaches the shared AP of claim 8.
Ajami in view of Cherian and Saad does not explicitly disclose wherein the information on interferential APs of the shared AP includes a neighbour list which includes ID information of neighbour APs sensed by the shared AP.
Referring to the invention of Chun, Chun teaches information on interferential APs of the shared AP (Chun: Fig. 15, ¶ 214 – 216, ¶ 272 – 273; wherein In a MAP technique, performance may be improved through a method for reducing inter-symbol interference (ISI) through cooperation between neighboring APs or performing transmission together…Fig. 15(d) shows an AP selection method in which an AP with a good channel condition among the adjacent APs performs transmission. As in an example of FIG. 15(e), joint transmission (JTX) or joint reception (JRX) in which multiple APs cooperate to perform transmission or reception simultaneously may be applied, and further, joint MU-MIMO may be supported) includes a neighbour list which includes ID information of neighbour APs sensed by the shared AP (Chun: Fig. 21, ¶ 272 – 273, ¶ 333 – 337; wherein A master AP may request slave AP(s) participating in a MAP operation to report their respective channel-related information, and each slave AP may report its respective channel-related information, and wherein Channel/subchannel information among the channel-related information may include information included in an existing beacon or neighbor report such as a capability of each AP. (Figure 21 shows examples of neighbor reports request/responses frame formats which includes fields that comprise SSID, neighbor report element for validated APs, BSSID field that indicates a BSSID of a reported BSS, a BSSID information field and many more)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the neighbor list teachings of Chun into the combined invention of Ajami, Cherian, and Saad in order to achieve dynamic interference management and channel optimizing, and minimal signaling overhead in multi-AP TXOP sharing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al., Cherian et al., and Saad et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ko et al. [US 20230076285 A1] hereinafter Ko.
Regarding claim 10, Ajami in view of Cherian and Saad teaches the shared AP of claim 8, wherein … BSS color information of the shared AP (Ajami: ¶ 41; wherein APs 102 associated with different BSS s may be associated with different BSS colors. A BSS color is a numerical identifier of an AP's respective BSS (such as a 6 bit field carried by the SIG field). Each STA 104 may learn its own BSS color upon association with the respective AP. BSS color information is communicated at both the PHY and MAC sublayers).
Ajami in view of Cherian and Saad does not explicitly teach that the response further includes BSS color information of the shared AP.
Referring to the invention of Ko, Ko teaches that the BSS color information of a shared AP can be provided in a probe response frame (Ko: ¶ 183; wherein the BSS color may be assigned through one of the management frames for each link. In this case, the management frame may include at least one of a beacon frame, a probe response frame, and a linkage frame).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the BSS color teachings of Ko into the combined invention of Ajami, Cherian, and Saad in order to achieve dynamic interference management, to quickly differentiate between intra-BSS vs. inter-BSS frames, and to improve spectral and energy efficiency in multi-AP TXOP sharing.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al., Cherian et al., and Saad et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. [US 20230119650 A1] hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 14, Ajami in view of Cherian and Saad teaches the shared AP of claim 8, wherein … BSS color information of APs sensed by the shared APs (Ajami: ¶ 41; wherein APs 102 associated with different BSS s may be associated with different BSS colors. A BSS color is a numerical identifier of an AP's respective BSS (such as a 6 bit field carried by the SIG field). Each STA 104 may learn its own BSS color upon association with the respective AP. BSS color information is communicated at both the PHY and MAC sublayers).
Ajami in view of Cherian and Saad does not explicitly teach that the information on interferential APs of the candidate shared AP includes a BSS color list which includes BSS color information of APs sensed by connected STAs connected with the shared AP.
Referring to the invention of Zhou, Zhou teaches the information on interferential APs of the candidate shared AP (Zhou: Fig. 2A-2B, ¶ 41 – 42; wherein Hardware processor 302 may execute instruction 310 to determine a basic service set (BSS) color assignment based on the signal strength of the AP and a signal strength threshold. As described herein, a signal strength, such as RSSI, associated with another AP can indicate a proximity and a likelihood that transmissions from the other AP may interfere with communications. (Therefore, the interferential APs of the candidate shared AP can be determined)) includes a BSS color list which includes BSS color information of APs sensed by connected STAs connected with the shared AP (Zhou: Fig. 2A-2B, ¶ 41 – 42; wherein an AP can determine a BSS color assignment based on the signal strength of another AP to account for the proximity of the other AP and the likelihood of interference from the other AP. The BSS color assignment can be determined based on whether the signal strength of the other AP exceeds a signal strength threshold, such as an RSSI threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the BSS color teachings of Zhou into the combined invention of Ajami, Cherian, and Saad in order to achieve dynamic interference management, to quickly differentiate between intra-BSS vs. inter-BSS frames, and to effectively prevent parallel transmissions in a scenario where interference from another AP would render parallel transmissions ineffective in multi-AP TXOP sharing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 – 5, 11 – 13, and 16 – 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2 , as best understood, the prior art of record fail to disclose, alone or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim “determining one or more shared APs based on neighbour lists of the plurality of candidate shared APs such that ID information of none of the shared APs is included in neighbor lists of other shared APs”.
Claims 4 – 5, as best understood, are dependent on claim 2 and are objected to for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fail to disclose, alone or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim “wherein the ID information of the at least one other shared AP is not included in the ID information list of APs sensed by the communicating STA”.
Claims 12 – 13 are dependent on claim 11 and are objected to for the same reason as claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record fail to disclose, alone or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim “determining one or more shared APs based on neighbour lists of the plurality of candidate shared APs such that ID information of none of the shared APs is included in neighbor lists of other shared APs”.
Claims 17 – 19 are dependent on claim 2 and are objected to for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 6, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and is objected to for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the prior art of record fail to disclose, alone or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim “determining one or more shared APs based on the BSS color information of the plurality of candidate shared APs and BSS color lists of the plurality of candidate shared APs such that BSS color information of none of the shared APs is included in BSS color lists of other shared APs”.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the prior art of record fail to disclose, alone or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim “determining one or more shared APs based on the BSS color information of the plurality of candidate shared APs and BSS color lists of the plurality of candidate shared APs such that BSS color information of none of the shared APs is included in BSS color lists of other shared APs”.
The Examiner notes the above limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Desai et al. [US 20210377839 A1]: Network Environment Health Monitoring. Desai discloses a neighbor list identifying a subset of the shared network's APs
Han et al. [US 20240040642 A1]: Method and System for Multiple Access Point Coordination. Han discloses an associated AP that broadcasts a message to neighboring APs listed in a table of candidate APs stored in the AP's memory
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIDAYAT DABIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-4541. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/HD/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/SAUMIT SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights