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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 10/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recited, “a first basic service set (BSS1)” in line 3. For clarity, it is suggested to include a semicolon “;” after a first basic service set (BSS1)”, such as, -- “a first basic service set (BSS1);”.
Claim 2 recited, “a first clear to send (CTS) message” in line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to change to “the first clear to send (CTS) message”.
Claim 11 recited, “a first basic service set (BSS1)” in line 2. For clarity, it is suggested to change to “the first basic service set (BSS1)”.
Claim 19 recited, “a first basic service set (BSS1)” in line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to change to “the first basic service set (BSS1)”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Ajami et al. (US 2024/0137980).
Regarding claim 1, Ajami discloses an access point [see Fig. 1, 2, ¶¶ 50-55; first AP 102; or Fig, 12, a wireless communication device 1200 in ¶ 120], comprising:
a processing device [see Fig. 12, ¶ 119; one or more processors] operable to:
transmit, at the access point, a first transmission in a first basic service set (BSS1) [see Fig. 1, ¶ 52; transmit information associated with a conditional sharing of the TXOP for the first AP 102 (within first BSS bandwidth)];
transmit opportunity (TXOP) in a first shared TXOP [see Fig. 1, ¶ 51; share or grant a TXOP with or to the second AP 102];
send, from the access point to an additional access point, a first TXOP sharing request to send trigger frame [see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 53, 63; send a control frame may be a Trigger frame, a multi-user (MU) request-to-send (RTS) TXOP sharing (TXS) Trigger frame, or a TXS Trigger frame variant]; and
receive, at the access point from the additional access point, a first clear to send (CTS) message [¶¶ 63, 105; AP 102-b may transmit a frame 810, which may be a CTS frame].
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites an access point, comprising: a processing device operable to: to perform the access point recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 10 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Ajami discloses a method comprising:
transmitting, at an access point, a first transmission in a first basic service set (BSS1) transmit opportunity (TXOP) in a first shared TXOP [see Fig. 1, 2, ¶ 52; transmit information associated with a conditional sharing of the TXOP for the first AP 102 (within first BSS bandwidth)]]; and
transmitting, at the access point, a second transmission in a first basic service set (BSS1) transmit opportunity (TXOP) in a second shared TXOP [see Fig. 1, 2, ¶ 52; transmitting reuse transmission/ (second transmission), which refer to a transmission between the second AP 102 (the TXOP-shared AP 102) and a client device of the second AP 102, such as a transmission, as allowed by C-SR, in the TXOP shared BSS; that is, the first AP 102 and the second AP 102 may coordinate or negotiate TXOP sharing to enable simultaneous communication of both the principal transmission and the reuse transmission (such as to increase a total system throughput)].
Regarding claim 20, Ajami discloses the method of claim 19.
Ajami discloses further comprising:
sending, from the access point to an additional access point, a first TXOP sharing request to send trigger frame [see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 53, 63; send a control frame, to second AP 102/ AP 102-b, may be a Trigger frame, a multi-user (MU) request-to-send (RTS) TXOP sharing (TXS) Trigger frame, or a TXS Trigger frame variant]; and
receiving, at the access point from the additional access point, a first clear to send (CTS) message [¶¶ 63, 105; AP 102-b may transmit a frame 810, which may be a CTS frame].
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 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Ajami et al. (US 2024/0137980) in view of Xia et al. (US 2022/0174691).
Regarding claim 2, Ajami discloses the access point of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing device is further operable to:
receive, at the access point from an additional access point, a second TXOP sharing request to send trigger frame;
send, from the access point to the additional access point, a first clear to send (CTS) message; and
transmit, at the access point, a second transmission in a first basic service set (BSS1) transmit opportunity (TXOP) in a second shared TXOP
However, Xia discloses wherein the processing device is further operable to:
receive, at the access point from an additional access point, a second TXOP sharing request to send trigger frame [see Fig. 28. ¶ 274; AP1 receives the Request TXOP access scheduler frame, which shows a different BSSID from itself, and responds by sending a TXOP access scheduler frame 870 to the AP associated with that BSSID];
send, from the access point to the additional access point, a first clear to send (CTS) message [Fig. 23, ¶ 245; AP1 sends a CTS-share 682 to AP2 to initiate the inquire process for BSS2]; and
transmit, at the access point, a second transmission in a first basic service set (BSS1) transmit opportunity (TXOP) in a second shared TXOP [Fig. 28, ¶ 275; send their UL DATA 876 and 882 to the associated AP (AP2) within the transmission duration defined in the TXOP offer frame].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the processing device is further operable to: receive, at the access point from an additional access point, a second TXOP sharing request to send trigger frame; send, from the access point to the additional access point, a first clear to send (CTS) message; and transmit, at the access point, a second transmission in a first basic service set (BSS1) transmit opportunity (TXOP) in a second shared TXOP” as taught by Xia in the system of Ajami, so that it would to achieve increased throughput, lower latency and higher efficiency [see Xia; ¶ 5].
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the access point of claim 10 to perform access point recited as in claim 2; therefore, claim 11 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 2.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Ajami et al. (US 2024/0137980) in view of MEHRVAR (US 2018/0007455).
Regarding claim 3, Ajami discloses the access point of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the access point and the additional access point have balanced traffic.
However, MEHRVAR discloses wherein the access point and the additional access point have balanced traffic [see Fig. 5A, ¶ 59; representative of balanced group-to-group traffic].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the access point and the additional access point have balanced traffic” as taught by MEHRVAR in the system of Ajami, so that it would to ensure bandwidth assignment calculation can be performed in a submicro-second time frame [see MEHRVAR; ¶ 3].
Regarding claim 4, Ajami discloses the access point of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the access point and the additional access point have unbalanced traffic.
However, MEHRVAR discloses wherein the access point and the additional access point have unbalanced traffic [see Fig. 5B, ¶ 62; representative of not balanced group-to-group traffic].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the access point and the additional access point have unbalanced traffic” as taught by MEHRVAR in the system of Ajami, so that it would to ensure bandwidth assignment calculation can be performed in a submicro-second time frame [see MEHRVAR; ¶ 3].
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the claims recite the access point of claim 10 to perform access point recited as in claims 3 and 4 respectively; therefore, claims 12 and 13 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 3 and 4 respectively.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Ajami et al. (US 2024/0137980) in view of Novlan et al. (US 2016/0302230).
Regarding claim 7, Ajami discloses the access point of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing device is further operable to: determine a soft time threshold via higher layer signaling.
However, Novlan discloses wherein the processing device is further operable to: determine a soft time threshold via higher layer signaling [see Claim 2, ¶ 40; determined based on an amount of occupied measurement time unit (MTU) exceeding at least one threshold for the average RSSI measurement, and wherein the at least one threshold is configured by a higher layer signal from the eNBs 101-103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the processing device is further operable to: determine a soft time threshold via higher layer signaling” as taught by Novlan in the system of Ajami, so that it would to enable co-existence of other RAT with LAA on an unlicensed frequency spectrum without undesirable interference between heterogeneous RATs [see Novlan; ¶ 3].
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the access point of claim 10 to perform access point recited as in claim 7; therefore, claim 16 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 7.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Ajami et al. (US 2024/0137980) in view of LEE et al. (US 2016/0345362).
Regarding claim 8, Ajami discloses the access point of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing device is further operable to: compute a TXOP length based on buffer status knowledge.
However, LEE discloses wherein the processing device is further operable to: compute a TXOP length based on buffer status knowledge [see ¶ 89; determine (e.g., compute, estimate) a TXOP duration based on its buffer data status].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the processing device is further operable to: compute a TXOP length based on buffer status knowledge” as taught by LEE in the system of Ajami, so that it would to performance in delivering their applications, including improved power consumption for battery-operated devices [see LEE; ¶ 3].
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the access point of claim 10 to perform access point recited as in claim 8; therefore, claim 17 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9, 14-15, and 18 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.
Conclusion
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, KO et al. (US 2024/0049304) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 1, 10, and 19 (Fig. 27, ¶¶ 329-337).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
