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 10/24/2024 and 05/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Objection to Claims 5 and 17 in regards to the term "PCF" used in these claims. Any abbreviation or shortened representations of a term should be spelled out completely upon its first use in each claim branch (e.g., Point Coordination Function (PCF)). Acronym PCF was not completely stated out on first use in the branch that contains claims 5 and 17.
Objection to claims 1, 16 and 20, “the same fixed period” should be replaced with “a same fixed period” or “same fixed period” (lack of antecedent basis).
Objection to claims 1 and 16. Claims 1 and 16 recites an initiating station while dependent claims, 2, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 19 recite initiating device.
Objection to claims 5 and 17, “the received power” should be replaced with “a received power” or “received power”. “The received power” lacks antecedent basis.
Objection to claim 9 and 19, “the responding device” should be “a responding device” (lack of antecedent basis).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 and all claims dependent on these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 contain IEEE 802.11 which means it is claiming all past and future versions of the IEEE 802.11 standard. The future versions are unknown.
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 1, 16 and 20 and all claims dependent on these claims 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.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 contain IEEE 802.11 which means it is claiming all past and future versions of the IEEE 802.11 standard. Content of IEEE 802.11 will change in future making the scope to be indefinite.
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 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 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 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barriac (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0055160), Barriac hereinafter, in view of Zhou (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0393066), Zhou hereinafter, and further in view of Ratnam (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0365379), Ratnam hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Barriac teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
21
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
21
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a station apparatus for communication in a wireless network, the apparatus comprising: (fig. 4A)
(a) at least one modem coupled to at least one radio-frequency (RF) circuit, with each RF circuit connected to one or multiple antennas; (fig. 4A)
(b) wherein said station (STA) is configured as a separate STA or as a STA within a multiple-link device (MLD), and in which said STA can operate as an access point (AP) or as a non-AP STA; (paragraph 0020 - … In the above discussed example, one or more STAs or APs may receive packet(s) from a member of an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) that may be intended for a different STA or AP in a different BSS than the receiving device (e.g., STA or AP). Nonetheless, the receiving device (e.g., STA or AP) may expend resources decoding the received OBSS packet(s). … [0061] In an aspect, modem 414-a can be a multiband-multimode modem, which can process digital data and communicate with transceiver 402-a such that the digital data is sent and received using transceiver 402-a. In an aspect, modem 414-a can be multiband and be configured to support multiple frequency bands for a specific communications protocol.)
(c) wherein at least one said STA, operating as an AP within a given basic service set (BSS) is configured for connecting to a hybrid controller (HC) which controls multiple APs in overlapping BSSs (OBSSs); (paragraph 0021 - ... In some aspects, a device (e.g., STA or AP), receiving a packet, may decode at least a portion of a preamble of the packet to determine whether the packet is sent by a member of an OBSS (e.g., STA or AP from a different BSS). … In some examples, IEEE 802.11 standard may define channel access mechanisms, including contention based distributed coordination function (DCF) and contention-free point coordination function (PCF) to coordinate multiple devices attempting to access limited channel resources in a wireless network. In DCF, devices (e.g., STA or AP) compete for channel access in a distributed fashion while PCF may be carried out by point coordinator (PC) residing in the AP.)
(d) a processor of said STA; (fig. 4A)
(e) a non-transitory memory storing instructions executable by the processor for wirelessly communicating with other STAs on a IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network (WLAN); and fig. 4A and paragraph [0029] While aspects of the present disclosure are described in connection with a WLAN deployment or the use of IEEE 802.11-compliant networks, … [0055] Transceiver 402-a may include at least one receiver 406-a and at least one transmitter 408-a. Receiver 406-a may include hardware, firmware, and/or software code executable by a processor for receiving data, the code comprising instructions and being stored in a memory (e.g., computer-readable medium). Receiver 406-a may be, for example, a radio frequency (RF) receiver. In an aspect, receiver 406-a may receive signals transmitted by at least one AP 105.
Yet, Barriac does not expressly teach (f) wherein said instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps of a wireless communications protocol having the following channel access procedure for ultra-high reliability (UHR) communication scenarios, comprising: (i) establishing a global hybrid coordinator (GHC) paradigm which is either a logical or physical entity which coordinates a group of APs belonging to different BSSs controlled by the same HC; and wherein APs belonging to the same GHC have the same fixed period and starting position of the fixed period is the same across them;
However, in the analogous art, Zhou explicitly discloses (f) wherein said instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps of a wireless communications protocol having the following channel access procedure for ultra-high reliability (UHR) communication scenarios, comprising: [0134] The following describes in detail how the above proposed schemes are designed in combination with different scenarios. Examples include an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) scenario as illustrated in FIG. 7, a virtual BSS (VBSS) scenario where a plurality of APs form a VBSS based on the UHR or UHR evolved technology as illustrated in FIG. 8, or a multi-AP group scenario as illustrated in FIG. 16.)
(i) establishing a global hybrid coordinator (GHC) paradigm which is either a logical or physical entity which coordinates a group of APs belonging to different BSSs controlled by the same HC; and wherein APs belonging to the same GHC have the same fixed period and starting position of the fixed period is the same across them; ([0134] The following describes in detail how the above proposed schemes are designed in combination with different scenarios. Examples include an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) scenario as illustrated in FIG. 7, a virtual BSS (VBSS) scenario where a plurality of APs form a VBSS based on the UHR or UHR evolved technology as illustrated in FIG. 8, or a multi-AP group scenario as illustrated in FIG. 16. ... [0146] ... In some embodiments, the second AP and the first AP belong to the same BSS, or the second AP and the first AP belong to different BSSs respectively. In some embodiments, the BSS to which the second AP belongs is overlapped with the BSS to which the first AP belongs ... [0253] In some embodiments, a VBSS may also be understood as a Multi-AP Group (or called a Multi-AP Coordination Group) formed by multiple APs, which includes a master AP/controller and at least one slave AP. As illustrated in FIG. 16, the group is controlled and managed by the master AP or the controller for all slave APs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Zhou's master AP controller and multi BSS UHR network to achieve high speed with coordinated channel access in the network.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou does not expressly teach (ii) determining that a channel is idle, by an initiating station that is either an AP or non-AP STA; (iii) acquiring a transmit opportunity (TxOP) on the channel within a specific fixed period; and (iv) transmitting for a defined portion of that specific fixed period, and then completing or halting transmission so that the channel is idle for the remainder of the specific fixed period.
However, in the analogous art, Ratnam explicitly discloses (ii) determining that a channel is idle, by an initiating station that is either an AP or non-AP STA; ([0050] Various embodiments of the present disclosure recognize that in an infrastructure WiFi network, a basic service set (BSS) typically refers to a network topology including one access point (AP) or an AP multi-link device (MLD), ... In particular, a WiFi BSS defines one of the 20 MHz channels of its operating bandwidth as the primary channel, and any device in that BSS is allowed to initiate transmission if the primary channel is sensed as IDLE (after performing a required random back-off). ... [0109] ... This can happen if a non-AP STA in the BSS of the shared AP, and that is outside the preamble detection threshold of the sharing AP, senses medium as IDLE and starts transmitting within the TXOP. ...)
(iii) acquiring a transmit opportunity (TxOP) on the channel within a specific fixed period; and ([0105] In one embodiment, the coordinating AP1 may include gaps in the transmission of their downlink TXOPs at pre-determined periodic durations (if they are the TXOP owner). These gaps can be called, for example a synchronization hook, and can be of a specific duration, called a coordination inter-frame spacing duration (CIFS). ... For example, if an AP2 has some buffered units (BUs) that it intends to deliver using multi-AP coordination with AP1, it waits for the next available synchronization hook at AP1 that is assigned to it and then sends a trigger frame to request taking control of the TXOP. Upon receiving such a trigger from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, AP1 may end its ongoing transmission and may allow AP2 to perform the multi-AP coordination for the TXOP as the sharing AP. If a trigger is not received from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, then AP1 may resume control of its TXOP and continue transmission of frames as scheduled for that TXOP. In one variant, AP1 may reject a sharing of the TXOP via such a synchronization hook. )
(iv) transmitting for a defined portion of that specific fixed period, and then completing or halting transmission so that the channel is idle for the remainder of the specific fixed period. ([0088] In one embodiment, upon receiving a coordination request message from a coordinating AP to synchronize the transmissions, an AP may ensure that it ends any on-going frame exchange (if it is the owner of a TXOP) at a specific time.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Ratnam's sensing of channel to declare it idle to minimize collision and achieve higher throughput.
Regarding Claim 3, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
21
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
21
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
claim 1.
Ratnam further teaches wherein the initiator pauses transmission within said TxOP, and later resumes transmission within that same TxOP. ([0105] In one embodiment, the coordinating AP1 may include gaps in the transmission of their downlink TXOPs at pre-determined periodic durations (if they are the TXOP owner). These gaps can be called, for example a synchronization hook, and can be of a specific duration, called a coordination inter-frame spacing duration (CIFS). ... For example, if an AP2 has some buffered units (BUs) that it intends to deliver using multi-AP coordination with AP1, it waits for the next available synchronization hook at AP1 that is assigned to it and then sends a trigger frame to request taking control of the TXOP. Upon receiving such a trigger from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, AP1 may end its ongoing transmission and may allow AP2 to perform the multi-AP coordination for the TXOP as the sharing AP. If a trigger is not received from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, then AP1 may resume control of its TXOP and continue transmission of frames as scheduled for that TXOP. In one variant, AP1 may reject a sharing of the TXOP via such a synchronization hook. )
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
21
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
claim 1.
Ratnam further teaches wherein the initiating device can entirely terminate, or truncate, its TxOP. ([0105] In one embodiment, the coordinating AP1 may include gaps in the transmission of their downlink TXOPs at pre-determined periodic durations (if they are the TXOP owner). These gaps can be called, for example a synchronization hook, and can be of a specific duration, called a coordination inter-frame spacing duration (CIFS). ... For example, if an AP2 has some buffered units (BUs) that it intends to deliver using multi-AP coordination with AP1, it waits for the next available synchronization hook at AP1 that is assigned to it and then sends a trigger frame to request taking control of the TXOP. Upon receiving such a trigger from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, AP1 may end its ongoing transmission and may allow AP2 to perform the multi-AP coordination for the TXOP as the sharing AP. If a trigger is not received from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, then AP1 may resume control of its TXOP and continue transmission of frames as scheduled for that TXOP. In one variant, AP1 may reject a sharing of the TXOP via such a synchronization hook. )
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 4.
Regarding Claim 8, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Ratnam further teaches wherein an initiating device can entirely terminate, truncate or pause, the TxOP to allow a responding device to perform a transmission within the TxOP ([0105] In one embodiment, the coordinating AP1 may include gaps in the transmission of their downlink TXOPs at pre-determined periodic durations (if they are the TXOP owner). These gaps can be called, for example a synchronization hook, and can be of a specific duration, called a coordination inter-frame spacing duration (CIFS). ... For example, if an AP2 has some buffered units (BUs) that it intends to deliver using multi-AP coordination with AP1, it waits for the next available synchronization hook at AP1 that is assigned to it and then sends a trigger frame to request taking control of the TXOP. Upon receiving such a trigger from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, AP1 may end its ongoing transmission and may allow AP2 to perform the multi-AP coordination for the TXOP as the sharing AP. If a trigger is not received from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, then AP1 may resume control of its TXOP and continue transmission of frames as scheduled for that TXOP. In one variant, AP1 may reject a sharing of the TXOP via such a synchronization hook. )
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Ratnam further teaches 9. The apparatus in claim 1, wherein said initiating device allows the responding device to transmit within the TxOP if at least one of the following conditions are met: (a) either the TxOP, or the transmission within the TxOP, is overlapping with a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) of a delivery traffic indication map (DTIM) beacon; ([0086] In another embodiment, each of the coordinating APs may be aware of each other's TBTT and they may ensure that they end their on-going frame exchange (if they are the owner of a TXOP) at the TBTT of the other coordinating AP. In another variant, if an AP is a CTS responder for a TXOP, it may not respond with a CTS to an RTS transmitted by a STA in its BSS if the NAV time of the RTS overlaps with the TBTT of the coordinating AP.)
or (b) either the TxOP, or the transmission within the TxOP, is allowed to extend over the last portion of the fixed period which is devoted for idle period; (Alternative)
Or (c) either the TxOP or the transmission within the TxOP is allowed to extend over the idle period of another device operating within the same BSS or within a different BSS, but belonging to a BSS which has the GHC in common (Alternative)
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 9.
Regarding Claim 16, Barriac teaches a station apparatus for communication in a wireless network, the apparatus comprising: (fig. 4A)
(a) at least one modem coupled to at least one radio-frequency (RF) circuit, with each RF circuit connected to one or multiple antennas; (fig. 4A)
(b) wherein said station (STA) is configured as a separate STA or as a STA within a multiple-link device (MLD), and in which said STA can operate as an access point (AP) or as a non-AP STA; (paragraph 0020 - … In the above discussed example, one or more STAs or APs may receive packet(s) from a member of an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) that may be intended for a different STA or AP in a different BSS than the receiving device (e.g., STA or AP). Nonetheless, the receiving device (e.g., STA or AP) may expend resources decoding the received OBSS packet(s). … [0061] In an aspect, modem 414-a can be a multiband-multimode modem, which can process digital data and communicate with transceiver 402-a such that the digital data is sent and received using transceiver 402-a. In an aspect, modem 414-a can be multiband and be configured to support multiple frequency bands for a specific communications protocol.)
(c) wherein at least one said STA, operating as an AP within a given basic service set (BSS) is configured for connecting through to a hybrid controller (HC) which controls multiple APs in overlapping BSSs (OBSSs); (paragraph 0021 - ... In some aspects, a device (e.g., STA or AP), receiving a packet, may decode at least a portion of a preamble of the packet to determine whether the packet is sent by a member of an OBSS (e.g., STA or AP from a different BSS). … In some examples, IEEE 802.11 standard may define channel access mechanisms, including contention based distributed coordination function (DCF) and contention-free point coordination function (PCF) to coordinate multiple devices attempting to access limited channel resources in a wireless network. In DCF, devices (e.g., STA or AP) compete for channel access in a distributed fashion while PCF may be carried out by point coordinator (PC) residing in the AP.)
(d) a processor of said STA; (fig. 4A)
(e) a non-transitory memory storing instructions executable by the processor for wirelessly communicating with other STAs on a IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network (WLAN); and (fig. 4A and paragraph [0029] While aspects of the present disclosure are described in connection with a WLAN deployment or the use of IEEE 802.11-compliant networks, … [0055] Transceiver 402-a may include at least one receiver 406-a and at least one transmitter 408-a. Receiver 406-a may include hardware, firmware, and/or software code executable by a processor for receiving data, the code comprising instructions and being stored in a memory (e.g., computer-readable medium). Receiver 406-a may be, for example, a radio frequency (RF) receiver. In an aspect, receiver 406-a may receive signals transmitted by at least one AP 105.)
Yet, Barriac does not expressly teach (f) wherein said instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps of a wireless communications protocol having the following channel access procedure for ultra-high reliability (UHR) communication scenarios, comprising: (i) establishing a global hybrid coordinator (GHC) paradigm which is either a logical or physical entity which coordinates a group of APs belonging to different BSSs controlled by the same HC; and wherein APs belonging to the same GHC have the same fixed period and starting position of the fixed period is the same across them;
However, in the analogous art, Zhou explicitly discloses (f) wherein said instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps of a wireless communications protocol having the following channel access procedure for ultra-high reliability (UHR) communication scenarios, comprising: ([0134] The following describes in detail how the above proposed schemes are designed in combination with different scenarios. Examples include an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) scenario as illustrated in FIG. 7, a virtual BSS (VBSS) scenario where a plurality of APs form a VBSS based on the UHR or UHR evolved technology as illustrated in FIG. 8, or a multi-AP group scenario as illustrated in FIG. 16.)
(i) establishing a global hybrid coordinator (GHC) paradigm which is either a logical or physical entity which coordinates a group of APs belonging to different BSSs controlled by the same HC; and wherein APs belonging to the same GHC have the same fixed period and starting position of the fixed period is the same across them; ([0134] The following describes in detail how the above proposed schemes are designed in combination with different scenarios. Examples include an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) scenario as illustrated in FIG. 7, a virtual BSS (VBSS) scenario where a plurality of APs form a VBSS based on the UHR or UHR evolved technology as illustrated in FIG. 8, or a multi-AP group scenario as illustrated in FIG. 16. ... [0146] ... In some embodiments, the second AP and the first AP belong to the same BSS, or the second AP and the first AP belong to different BSSs respectively. In some embodiments, the BSS to which the second AP belongs is overlapped with the BSS to which the first AP belongs ... [0253] In some embodiments, a VBSS may also be understood as a Multi-AP Group (or called a Multi-AP Coordination Group) formed by multiple APs, which includes a master AP/controller and at least one slave AP. As illustrated in FIG. 16, the group is controlled and managed by the master AP or the controller for all slave APs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Zhou's master AP controller and multi BSS UHR network to achieve high speed with coordinated channel access in the network.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou does not expressly teach (ii) determining that a channel is idle at the start of a pre-defined or configured fixed period, by an initiating station that is either an AP or non-AP STA; (iii) acquiring a transmit opportunity (TxOP) on the channel within a specific fixed period; (iv) transmitting for a defined portion of that specific fixed period, and then completing or halting transmission so that the channel is idle for the remainder of the specific fixed period; and (v) wherein said initiator can pause, terminate or truncate transmission within said TxOP.
However, in the analogous art, Ratnam explicitly discloses (ii) determining that a channel is idle at the start of a pre-defined or configured fixed period, by an initiating station that is either an AP or non-AP STA; ([0050] Various embodiments of the present disclosure recognize that in an infrastructure WiFi network, a basic service set (BSS) typically refers to a network topology including one access point (AP) or an AP multi-link device (MLD), ... In particular, a WiFi BSS defines one of the 20 MHz channels of its operating bandwidth as the primary channel, and any device in that BSS is allowed to initiate transmission if the primary channel is sensed as IDLE (after performing a required random back-off). ... [0109] ... This can happen if a non-AP STA in the BSS of the shared AP, and that is outside the preamble detection threshold of the sharing AP, senses medium as IDLE and starts transmitting within the TXOP. ...)
(iii) acquiring a transmit opportunity (TxOP) on the channel within a specific fixed period; ([0105] In one embodiment, the coordinating AP1 may include gaps in the transmission of their downlink TXOPs at pre-determined periodic durations (if they are the TXOP owner). These gaps can be called, for example a synchronization hook, and can be of a specific duration, called a coordination inter-frame spacing duration (CIFS). ... For example, if an AP2 has some buffered units (BUs) that it intends to deliver using multi-AP coordination with AP1, it waits for the next available synchronization hook at AP1 that is assigned to it and then sends a trigger frame to request taking control of the TXOP. Upon receiving such a trigger from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, AP1 may end its ongoing transmission and may allow AP2 to perform the multi-AP coordination for the TXOP as the sharing AP. If a trigger is not received from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, then AP1 may resume control of its TXOP and continue transmission of frames as scheduled for that TXOP. In one variant, AP1 may reject a sharing of the TXOP via such a synchronization hook. )
(iv) transmitting for a defined portion of that specific fixed period, and then completing or halting transmission so that the channel is idle for the remainder of the specific fixed period; and ([0088] In one embodiment, upon receiving a coordination request message from a coordinating AP to synchronize the transmissions, an AP may ensure that it ends any on-going frame exchange (if it is the owner of a TXOP) at a specific time.)
(v) wherein said initiator can pause, terminate or truncate transmission within said TxOP. ([0105] In one embodiment, the coordinating AP1 may include gaps in the transmission of their downlink TXOPs at pre-determined periodic durations (if they are the TXOP owner). These gaps can be called, for example a synchronization hook, and can be of a specific duration, called a coordination inter-frame spacing duration (CIFS). ... For example, if an AP2 has some buffered units (BUs) that it intends to deliver using multi-AP coordination with AP1, it waits for the next available synchronization hook at AP1 that is assigned to it and then sends a trigger frame to request taking control of the TXOP. Upon receiving such a trigger from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, AP1 may end its ongoing transmission and may allow AP2 to perform the multi-AP coordination for the TXOP as the sharing AP. If a trigger is not received from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, then AP1 may resume control of its TXOP and continue transmission of frames as scheduled for that TXOP. In one variant, AP1 may reject a sharing of the TXOP via such a synchronization hook. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Ratnam's sensing of channel to declare it idle to minimize collision and achieve higher throughput.
Regarding Claim 17, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 16.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein a channel is assessed to be idle upon sensing the channel for the duration of a short interframe space (SIF) and determining that the received power is below a given threshold, and finally declares the channel idle at the transmission PCF interframe Space (TxPIFS) slot boundary.
However, in the analogous art, Choi explicitly discloses wherein a channel is assessed to be idle upon sensing the channel for the duration of a short interframe space (SIF) and determining that the received power is below a given threshold, and finally declares the channel idle at the transmission PCF interframe Space (TxPIFS) slot boundary([0358] Before sending a frame through a channel, an STA may check CCA by performing energy detection on the corresponding channel. The STA may observe the channel during a CCA observation time. In this case, the CCA observation time may be less than 18 μs. If the energy level of the observed channel does not exceed a threshold corresponding to a preset power level, the channel may be considered to be an idle (or clear) state, and the STA may transmit the frame through the channel.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Choi's channel assessment to declare idle to minimize collision and achieve higher throughput.
Regarding Claim 18, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 16.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein said fixed period for an AP and its associated non-AP STA can be of different lengths; and wherein said fixed period for an AP and a non-AP STA can commence at different times as determined by a pre-defined or pre-configured offset.
However, in the analogous art, Ong explicitly discloses wherein said fixed period for an AP and its associated non-AP STA can be of different lengths; and wherein said fixed period for an AP and a non-AP STA can commence at different times as determined by a pre-defined or pre-configured offset ([0055] At least one set of transmission opportunity limit parameters, each of the parameters being associated with specific bandwidth, is retrieved or computed 700. Thus, an AP 20 may apply predefined TXOP limit parameter values, or dynamically alter the TXOP parameter values e.g. on the basis of current load situation. The AP 20 may also consider the amount of overlapping further APs in its operating channels and reduce the use of overlapping channels to improve the co-existence of the networks. The AP may also receive the channel specific TXOP limit parameter values from a central unit that is mastering the performance and load balancing of the local area network.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Ong's alteration of TXOP parameter to achieve higher throughput and lower latency.
Regarding Claim 19, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 16.
Ratnam further teaches wherein said initiating device allows the responding device to transmit within the TxOP if at least one of the following conditions are met: (a) either the TxOP, or the transmission within the TxOP, is overlapping with a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) of a delivery traffic indication map (DTIM) beacon; ([0086] In another embodiment, each of the coordinating APs may be aware of each other's TBTT and they may ensure that they end their on-going frame exchange (if they are the owner of a TXOP) at the TBTT of the other coordinating AP. In another variant, if an AP is a CTS responder for a TXOP, it may not respond with a CTS to an RTS transmitted by a STA in its BSS if the NAV time of the RTS overlaps with the TBTT of the coordinating AP.)
Or (b) either the TxOP, or the transmission within the TxOP, is allowed to extend over the last portion of the fixed period which is devoted for idle period; (Alternative)
Or (c) either the TxOP or the transmission within the TxOP is allowed to extend over the idle period of another device operating within the same BSS or within a different BSS, but belonging to a BSS which has the GHC in common (Alternative).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 16 is also applied to claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Barriac teaches (a) communicating between stations (STAs) on a IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network (WLAN), where each STA is a separate STA or as a STA within a multiple-link device (MLD), and in which said STA can operate as an access point (AP) or as a non-AP STA; (paragraph 0020 - … In the above discussed example, one or more STAs or APs may receive packet(s) from a member of an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) that may be intended for a different STA or AP in a different BSS than the receiving device (e.g., STA or AP). Nonetheless, the receiving device (e.g., STA or AP) may expend resources decoding the received OBSS packet(s). … paragraph 0021 - ... In some examples, IEEE 802.11 standard may define channel access mechanisms ... [0061] In an aspect, modem 414-a can be a multiband-multimode modem, which can process digital data and communicate with transceiver 402-a such that the digital data is sent and received using transceiver 402-a. In an aspect, modem 414-a can be multiband and be configured to support multiple frequency bands for a specific communications protocol.)
(b) wherein at least one said STA, operating as an AP within a given basic service set (BSS) is configured for connecting to a hybrid controller (HC) which controls multiple APs in overlapping BSSs (OBSSs); (paragraph 0021 - ... In some aspects, a device (e.g., STA or AP), receiving a packet, may decode at least a portion of a preamble of the packet to determine whether the packet is sent by a member of an OBSS (e.g., STA or AP from a different BSS). … In some examples, IEEE 802.11 standard may define channel access mechanisms, including contention based distributed coordination function (DCF) and contention-free point coordination function (PCF) to coordinate multiple devices attempting to access limited channel resources in a wireless network. In DCF, devices (e.g., STA or AP) compete for channel access in a distributed fashion while PCF may be carried out by point coordinator (PC) residing in the AP.)
Yet, Barriac does not expressly teach a method for performing channel access under controlled ultra-high reliability (UHR) scenarios when communicating in a wireless network,
(c) establishing a global hybrid coordinator (GHC) paradigm which is either a logical or physical entity which coordinates a group of APs belonging to different BSSs controlled by the same HC; and wherein APs belonging to the same GHC have the same fixed period and starting position of the fixed period is the same across them.
However, in the analogous art, Zhou explicitly discloses a method for performing channel access under controlled ultra-high reliability (UHR) scenarios when communicating in a wireless network, ([0134] The following describes in detail how the above proposed schemes are designed in combination with different scenarios. Examples include an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) scenario as illustrated in FIG. 7, a virtual BSS (VBSS) scenario where a plurality of APs form a VBSS based on the UHR or UHR evolved technology as illustrated in FIG. 8, or a multi-AP group scenario as illustrated in FIG. 16.)
(c) establishing a global hybrid coordinator (GHC) paradigm which is either a logical or physical entity which coordinates a group of APs belonging to different BSSs controlled by the same HC; and wherein APs belonging to the same GHC have the same fixed period and starting position of the fixed period is the same across them ([0134] The following describes in detail how the above proposed schemes are designed in combination with different scenarios. Examples include an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) scenario as illustrated in FIG. 7, a virtual BSS (VBSS) scenario where a plurality of APs form a VBSS based on the UHR or UHR evolved technology as illustrated in FIG. 8, or a multi-AP group scenario as illustrated in FIG. 16. ... [0146] ... In some embodiments, the second AP and the first AP belong to the same BSS, or the second AP and the first AP belong to different BSSs respectively. In some embodiments, the BSS to which the second AP belongs is overlapped with the BSS to which the first AP belongs ... [0253] In some embodiments, a VBSS may also be understood as a Multi-AP Group (or called a Multi-AP Coordination Group) formed by multiple APs, which includes a master AP/controller and at least one slave AP. As illustrated in FIG. 16, the group is controlled and managed by the master AP or the controller for all slave APs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Zhou's master AP controller and multi BSS UHR network to achieve high speed with coordinated channel access in the network.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou does not expressly teach (d) determining that a channel is idle, by an initiating station that is either an AP or non-AP STA; (e) acquiring a transmit opportunity (TxOP) on the channel within a specific fixed period; and (f) transmitting for a defined portion of that specific fixed period, and then completing or halting transmission so that the channel is idle for the remainder of the specific fixed period.
However, in the analogous art, Ratnam explicitly discloses (d) determining that a channel is idle, by an initiating station that is either an AP or non-AP STA; ([0050] Various embodiments of the present disclosure recognize that in an infrastructure WiFi network, a basic service set (BSS) typically refers to a network topology including one access point (AP) or an AP multi-link device (MLD), ... In particular, a WiFi BSS defines one of the 20 MHz channels of its operating bandwidth as the primary channel, and any device in that BSS is allowed to initiate transmission if the primary channel is sensed as IDLE (after performing a required random back-off). ... [0109] ... This can happen if a non-AP STA in the BSS of the shared AP, and that is outside the preamble detection threshold of the sharing AP, senses medium as IDLE and starts transmitting within the TXOP. ...)
(e) acquiring a transmit opportunity (TxOP) on the channel within a specific fixed period; and (paragraph [0105] In one embodiment, the coordinating AP1 may include gaps in the transmission of their downlink TXOPs at pre-determined periodic durations (if they are the TXOP owner). These gaps can be called, for example a synchronization hook, and can be of a specific duration, called a coordination inter-frame spacing duration (CIFS). ... For example, if an AP2 has some buffered units (BUs) that it intends to deliver using multi-AP coordination with AP1, it waits for the next available synchronization hook at AP1 that is assigned to it and then sends a trigger frame to request taking control of the TXOP. Upon receiving such a trigger from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, AP1 may end its ongoing transmission and may allow AP2 to perform the multi-AP coordination for the TXOP as the sharing AP. If a trigger is not received from an AP2 within the CIFS duration, then AP1 may resume control of its TXOP and continue transmission of frames as scheduled for that TXOP. In one variant, AP1 may reject a sharing of the TXOP via such a synchronization hook. )
(f) transmitting for a defined portion of that specific fixed period, and then completing or halting transmission so that the channel is idle for the remainder of the specific fixed period (paragraph [0088] In one embodiment, upon receiving a coordination request message from a coordinating AP to synchronize the transmissions, an AP may ensure that it ends any on-going frame exchange (if it is the owner of a TXOP) at a specific time.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Ratnam's sensing of channel to declare it idle to minimize collision and achieve higher throughput.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barriac (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0126692), Barriac hereinafter, in view of Zhou (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0053342), Zhou hereinafter, and further in view of Ratnam (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0344400), Ratnam hereinafter, and further in view of Pandian (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0360694), Pandian hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 2, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein said initiating device can only acquire a TxOP after the initiating device first determines that the channel is idle at the start of a pre-defined or configured fixed period.
However, in the analogous art, Pandian explicitly discloses wherein said initiating device can only acquire a TxOP after the initiating device first determines that the channel is idle at the start of a pre-defined or configured fixed period. ([0145] Device D1 may determine whether the wireless medium is idle by sensing a level of energy on the wireless medium, and comparing the sensed energy level to one or more of the adjusted PD threshold, the adjusted OBSS PD threshold, or the adjusted ED threshold. In some implementations, device D1 may detect the preambles of the packets received from device D2 during the measurement window, determine that the packets were transmitted from device D2, and compare the determined RSSI value of the received packets with the adjusted PD threshold. For example, if the determined RSSI value is greater than the adjusted PD threshold, the CCA may indicate that the wireless medium is busy, and device D1 may defer channel access. Conversely, if the determined RSSI value is not greater than the adjusted PD threshold, the CCA may indicate that the wireless medium is idle. When the wireless medium is determined to be idle for the appropriate IFS period, device D1 may decrement its backoff counter, and gain access to the wireless medium for a TXOP when the backoff counter reaches zero.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Pandian's sensing of idle state for appropriate period to prevent overlapping transmission and enforce interframe spacing.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barriac (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0126692), Barriac hereinafter, in view of Zhou (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0053342), Zhou hereinafter, and further in view of Ratnam (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0344400), Ratnam hereinafter, and further in view of Choi (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0208625), Choi hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 5, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein a channel is assessed to be idle upon sensing the channel for the duration of a short interframe space (SIF) and determining that the received power is below a given threshold, and finally declares the channel idle at the transmission PCF interframe Space (TxPIFS) slot boundary.
However, in the analogous art, Choi explicitly discloses wherein a channel is assessed to be idle upon sensing the channel for the duration of a short interframe space (SIF) and determining that the received power is below a given threshold, and finally declares the channel idle at the transmission PCF interframe Space (TxPIFS) slot boundary ([0358] Before sending a frame through a channel, an STA may check CCA by performing energy detection on the corresponding channel. The STA may observe the channel during a CCA observation time. In this case, the CCA observation time may be less than 18 μs. If the energy level of the observed channel does not exceed a threshold corresponding to a preset power level, the channel may be considered to be an idle (or clear) state, and the STA may transmit the frame through the channel.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Choi's channel assessment to declare idle to minimize collision and achieve higher throughput.
Regarding Claim 15, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein said STA, operating as a non-AP STA detects that the AP has failed to acquire the channel and has not initiated a transmission within that fixed period, then the non-AP STA operates as an initiating device, determines that the channel is idle, and declares the channel idle at the transmission PCF interframe Space (TxPIFS) slot boundary which corresponds with starting point of the fixed period for the non-AP STA.
However, in the analogous art, Choi explicitly discloses wherein said STA, operating as a non-AP STA detects that the AP has failed to acquire the channel and has not initiated a transmission within that fixed period, then the non-AP STA operates as an initiating device, determines that the channel is idle, and declares the channel idle at the transmission PCF interframe Space (TxPIFS) slot boundary which corresponds with starting point of the fixed period for the non-AP STA ([0231] In the illustrated examples, an STA using the PIFS starts transmission after a carrier sense (CS) mechanism for determining that a medium is an idle state in a Tx PIFS slot boundary other than the case where CCA is performed in a secondary channel.)
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 5 is also applied to claim 15.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barriac (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0126692), Barriac hereinafter, in view of Zhou (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0053342), Zhou hereinafter, and further in view of Ratnam (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0344400), Ratnam hereinafter, and further in view of Ong (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0182886), Ong hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 6, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein said fixed period for an AP and its associated non-AP STA can be of different lengths.
However, in the analogous art, Ong explicitly discloses wherein said fixed period for an AP and its associated non-AP STA can be of different lengths ([0055] At least one set of transmission opportunity limit parameters, each of the parameters being associated with specific bandwidth, is retrieved or computed 700. Thus, an AP 20 may apply predefined TXOP limit parameter values, or dynamically alter the TXOP parameter values e.g. on the basis of current load situation. The AP 20 may also consider the amount of overlapping further APs in its operating channels and reduce the use of overlapping channels to improve the co-existence of the networks. The AP may also receive the channel specific TXOP limit parameter values from a central unit that is mastering the performance and load balancing of the local area network.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Ong's alteration of TXOP parameter to achieve higher throughput and lower latency.
Regarding Claim 7, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam and further in view of Ong teaches claim 6.
Ong further teaches wherein said fixed period for an AP and a non-AP STA can commence at different times as determined by a pre-defined or pre-configured offset ([0055] At least one set of transmission opportunity limit parameters, each of the parameters being associated with specific bandwidth, is retrieved or computed 700. Thus, an AP 20 may apply predefined TXOP limit parameter values, or dynamically alter the TXOP parameter values e.g. on the basis of current load situation. The AP 20 may also consider the amount of overlapping further APs in its operating channels and reduce the use of overlapping channels to improve the co-existence of the networks. The AP may also receive the channel specific TXOP limit parameter values from a central unit that is mastering the performance and load balancing of the local area network.)
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 6 is also applied to claim 7.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barriac (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0126692), Barriac hereinafter, in view of Zhou (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0053342), Zhou hereinafter, and further in view of Ratnam (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0344400), Ratnam hereinafter, and further in view of Akhmetov (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0076422), Akhmetov hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 10, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein said fixed period, and/or said TxOP, is not to extend and thus overlap with idle periods of other APs and STAs.
However, in the analogous art, Akhmetov explicitly discloses wherein said fixed period, and/or said TxOP, is not to extend and thus overlap with idle periods of other APs and STAs ([0020] In some embodiments, the one or more BTPs 104 may be signaled as part of a broadcast target wake-up time (TWT) field using a reserved bit indicating a start of a service period (SP) that is associated with one of the BTPs 104. In some embodiments, the TXOP 108 is to either end prior to any one of the one or more BTPs 104 or is to start after any one or the one or more BTPs 104. In some embodiments, the AP STA and non-AP STA may be part of a BSS and any TXOPs within a BSS channel may be bounded by the one or more BTPs 104.) BTP is Boundary time point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Akhmetov's restriction of transmission to within boundary time point to minimize packets interference and costly retransmissions.
Regarding Claim 11, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein said fixed period, and/or said TxOP, of an AP is not allowed to overlap with the idle period of a non-AP STA, to thus prioritize a non-AP STA as initiating device over an AP.
However, in the analogous art, Akhmetov explicitly discloses wherein said fixed period, and/or said TxOP, of an AP is not allowed to overlap with the idle period of a non-AP STA, to thus prioritize a non-AP STA as initiating device over an AP ([0021] Some embodiments are directed to an access point (AP) station (STA). In these embodiments, the AP STA may encode a beacon frame 102 for transmission within a beacon interval (BI) 106. The beacon frame 102 may indicate one or more boundary time points (BTPs) 104. Non-AP STAs associated with the AP STA are to be restricted from obtaining a transmission opportunity (TXOP) extending beyond any of the BTPs 104. In these embodiments, the AP STA may obtain a transmission opportunity (TXOP) 108 for a transmission to a non-AP STA and encode a PPDU for transmission to the non-AP STA during the TXOP.) BTP is Boundary time point.
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 10 is also applied to claim 11.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barriac (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0126692), Barriac hereinafter, in view of Zhou (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0053342), Zhou hereinafter, and further in view of Ratnam (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0344400), Ratnam hereinafter, and further in view of Li (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0037354), Li hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 12, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein said fixed period, and/or TxOP, of a non-AP STA can continue within the idle period of an AP, yet is not allowed to overlap with the tail portion of the idle period during which the AP is expected to determine whether the channel is idle prior to acquiring a subsequent fixed period.
However, in the analogous art, Li explicitly discloses wherein said fixed period, and/or TxOP, of a non-AP STA can continue within the idle period of an AP, yet is not allowed to overlap with the tail portion of the idle period during which the AP is expected to determine whether the channel is idle prior to acquiring a subsequent fixed period (combination of fig. 9 and fig. 10 shows the Channel occupancy time extending into the idle period but still left space at the tail end for Listen Before Talk. Option 1, 2 and 3 of fig. 10 shows different amount of extension into the idle period but all idle period is not occupied in all cases.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Li's transmission extension into idle period to maximize channel utilization, and increase overall throughput.
Regarding Claim 13, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein an AP, whether operating as an initiating or a responding device, is not allowed to transmit within the idle period of a non-AP STA or within the tail portion of the idle period during which the non-AP STA is expected to determine whether the channel is idle prior to acquiring the subsequent fixed frame period (FFP).
However, in the analogous art, Li explicitly discloses wherein an AP, whether operating as an initiating or a responding device, is not allowed to transmit within the idle period of a non-AP STA or within the tail portion of the idle period during which the non-AP STA is expected to determine whether the channel is idle prior to acquiring the subsequent fixed frame period (FFP) (combination of fig. 9 and fig. 10 shows the Channel occupancy time extending into the idle period but still left space at the tail end for Listen Before Talk. Option 1, 2 and 3 of fig. 10 shows different amount of extension into the idle period but all idle period is not occupied in all cases.).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness of claim 12 is also applied to claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barriac (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0126692), Barriac hereinafter, in view of Zhou (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0053342), Zhou hereinafter, and further in view of Ratnam (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0344400), Ratnam hereinafter, and further in view of Chu (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0150967), Chu hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 14, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam teaches claim 1.
Yet, Barriac in view of Zhou and further in view of Ratnam does not expressly teach wherein subject to the AP failing to acquire the channel at the beginning of its fixed period, a non-AP STA is allowed to operate as an initiating device within a fixed period of the AP.
However, in the analogous art, Chu explicitly discloses wherein subject to the AP failing to acquire the channel at the beginning of its fixed period, a non-AP STA is allowed to operate as an initiating device within a fixed period of the AP ([0017] … In some embodiments, an AP1 does not announce the agreed r-TWT schedule(s) of AP2 in a beacon to its associated STAs and an r-TWT SP of the AP2 is respected by mandating the STAs associated with AP1 to initiate its TXOP by an initial control frame (ICF), e.g., BSRP Trigger, MU-RTS, RTS, that solicits the responding control frame (e.g. Multi-STA BA, CTS). ...)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barriac’s backoff mechanism techniques for spatial reuse to include Chu's mandating of STAs associated with AP to initiate its TXOP to achieve faster uplink access and lower delay.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AYODELE OLUBODUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5462. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00am - 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
/A.L.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights