DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 10/25/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baykas et al. (US 2026/0107310 A1) hereinafter “Baykas.”
Regarding Claim 1, Baykas teaches A method comprising:
determining a plurality of Stations (STAs) are within range of a first Access Point (AP) and a second AP (Baykas: paragraph 0083-0084 & Fig. 10, interference due to STA operating in proximity to multiple APs and/or are within each other’s communication range);
creating a Shared Risk Medium Group (SRMG), the SRMG including the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0048, interference avoidance requiring that data transmissions between an AP and STAs are only within the same BSS (i.e. each AP transmits or receives data frames to or from its associated STAs, while each STA receives or transmits data frames to or from its associating AP; see also paragraph 0050, multi-AP transmission schemes); and
determining a schedule for transmitting to the SRMG (Baykas: paragraphs 0088 & 0095, scheduled first period and second period for communication by the first AP and second AP respectively), wherein the schedule comprises:
a first AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraphs 0086, 0088 & Fig. 11, first period for communication with the first AP), wherein the first AP is operable to communicate with one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs using beamforming (Baykas: paragraph 0050, AP transmission scheme and/or signal to increase power toward a target STA while reducing the power that interferes with a STA associated with a neighboring AP), and the second AP cannot communicate with any of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0088, first period includes a restricted target wake time service period, thus excluding access by the second AP during the first scheduled service period), and
a second AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraphs 0086, 0095-0097 & Fig. 11, second period for communication with the second AP), wherein the second AP is operable to communicate with one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0083 & Fig. 10, plurality of STAs) using beamforming (Baykas: paragraph 0050, said AP transmission scheme), and the first AP cannot communicate with any of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0095, second period for communication may be a future scheduled period such as a (second) restricted target wake time service period; see also paragraph 0097, second period for communication by second AP does not overlap with (and/or avoids) the first period for communication by first AP).
Regarding Claim 2, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the second AP is operable to communicate with a STA outside of the SRMG using beamforming during the first AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraph 0098, second period for communication by the second AP may overlap the first period for communication by first AP).
Regarding Claim 3, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first AP is operable to communicate with a STA outside of the SRMG using beamforming during the second AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraph 0098, first period for communication by the first AP may overlap with the second period for communication by second AP).
Regarding Claim 4, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein determining the plurality of STAs are within range of the first AP and the second AP is based at least in part on any one of: (i) addresses of one or more STAs associated to the first AP, (ii) Received Signal Strength Indicators (RSSIs) of the one or more STAs associated to the first AP, (iii) addresses of one or more STAs associated to the second AP, (iv) RSSIs of the one or more STAs associated to the second AP, (v) addresses of one or more STAs detected by the first AP, (vi) addresses of one or more STAs detected by the second AP, or (vii) any combination of (i)-(vi) (Baykas: paragraphs 0101-0103, determine a received signal strength indicator (RSSIs)).
Regarding Claim 5, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein determining the schedule comprises determining an alternating schedule for the first AP and the second AP (Baykas: paragraph 0086, indicating a second period for communication by the second AP based on the first period for communication by the first AP and the (second) received signal strength indicator).
Regarding Claim 6, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein determining the schedule is based at least in part on any one of (i) transmission information of the first AP and the second AP, (ii) communication requests of one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (Baykas: paragraph 0096, second period for communication may be based on the first period for communication by AP and the received signal strength indicator).
Regarding Claim 7, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches adding a first STA to the SRMG after the first STA moves within range of the first AP and the second AP (Baykas: paragraph 0052, STA may join the multi-AP network and/or change its location); and
removing a second STA from the SRMG after the second STA moves out of range of any one of (i) the first AP, (ii) the second AP, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (Baykas: paragraph 0052, STA may leave the multi-AP network and/or change its location).
Regarding Claim 8, Baykas teaches A system comprising:
a memory storage (Baykas: paragraph 0037 & Fig. 2, memory); and
a processing unit (Baykas: paragraph 0037 & Fig. 2, processor) coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit is operative to:
determine a plurality of Stations (STAs) are within range of a first Access Point (AP) and a second AP (Baykas: paragraph 0083-0084 & Fig. 10, interference due to STA operating in proximity to multiple APs and/or are within each other’s communication range);
create a Shared Risk Medium Group (SRMG), the SRMG including the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0048, interference avoidance requiring that data transmissions between an AP and STAs are only within the same BSS (i.e. each AP transmits or receives data frames to or from its associated STAs, while each STA receives or transmits data frames to or from its associating AP; see also paragraph 0050, multi-AP transmission schemes); and
determine a schedule for transmitting to the SRMG (Baykas: paragraphs 0088 & 0095, scheduled first period and second period for communication by the first AP and second AP respectively), wherein the schedule comprises:
a first AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraphs 0086, 0088 & Fig. 11, first period for communication with the first AP), wherein the first AP is operable to communicate with one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs using beamforming (Baykas: paragraph 0050, AP transmission scheme and/or signal to increase power toward a target STA while reducing the power that interferes with a STA associated with a neighboring AP), and the second AP cannot communicate with any of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0088, first period includes a restricted target wake time service period, thus excluding access by the second AP during the first scheduled service period), and
a second AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraphs 0086, 0095-0097 & Fig. 11, second period for communication with the second AP), wherein the second AP is operable to communicate with one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0083 & Fig. 10, plurality of STAs) using beamforming (Baykas: paragraph 0050, said AP transmission scheme), and the first AP cannot communicate with any of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0095, second period for communication may be a future scheduled period such as a (second) restricted target wake time service period; see also paragraph 0097, second period for communication by second AP does not overlap with (and/or avoids) the first period for communication by first AP).
Regarding Claim 9, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the second AP is operable to communicate with a STA outside of the SRMG using beamforming during the first AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraph 0098, second period for communication by the second AP may overlap the first period for communication by first AP).
Regarding Claim 10, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first AP is operable to communicate with a STA outside of the SRMG using beamforming during the second AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraph 0098, first period for communication by the first AP may overlap with the second period for communication by second AP).
Regarding Claim 11, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein to determine the plurality of STAs are within range of the first AP and the second AP is based at least in part on any one of: (i) addresses of one or more STAs associated to the first AP, (ii) Received Signal Strength Indicators (RSSIs) of the one or more STAs associated to the first AP, (iii) addresses of one or more STAs associated to the second AP, (iv) RSSIs of the one or more STAs associated to the second AP, (v) addresses of one or more STAs detected by the first AP, (vi) addresses of one or more STAs detected by the second AP, or (vii) any combination of (i)-(vi) (Baykas: paragraphs 0101-0103, determine a received signal strength indicator (RSSIs)).
Regarding Claim 12, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein to determine the schedule comprises to determine an alternating schedule for the first AP and the second AP (Baykas: paragraph 0086, indicating a second period for communication by the second AP based on the first period for communication by the first AP and the (second) received signal strength indicator).
Regarding Claim 13, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein to determine the schedule is based at least in part on any one of (i) transmission information of the first AP and the second AP, (ii) communication requests of one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (Baykas: paragraph 0096, second period for communication may be based on the first period for communication by AP and the received signal strength indicator).
Regarding Claim 14, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches add a first STA to the SRMG after the first STA moves within range of the first AP and the second AP (Baykas: paragraph 0052, STA may join the multi-AP network and/or change its location); and
remove a second STA from the SRMG after the second STA moves out of range of any one of (i) the first AP, (ii) the second AP, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (Baykas: paragraph 0052, STA may leave the multi-AP network and/or change its location).
Regarding Claim 15, Baykas teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium (Baykas: paragraph 0039, non-transitory computer readable medium) that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions (Baykas: paragraph 0039, computer program instructions that may be executed by processor) comprising:
determining a plurality of Stations (STAs) are within range of a first Access Point (AP) and a second AP (Baykas: paragraph 0083-0084 & Fig. 10, interference due to STA operating in proximity to multiple APs and/or are within each other’s communication range);
creating a Shared Risk Medium Group (SRMG), the SRMG including the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0048, interference avoidance requiring that data transmissions between an AP and STAs are only within the same BSS (i.e. each AP transmits or receives data frames to or from its associated STAs, while each STA receives or transmits data frames to or from its associating AP; see also paragraph 0050, multi-AP transmission schemes); and
determining a schedule for transmitting to the SRMG (Baykas: paragraphs 0088 & 0095, scheduled first period and second period for communication by the first AP and second AP respectively), wherein the schedule comprises:
a first AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraphs 0086, 0088 & Fig. 11, first period for communication with the first AP), wherein the first AP is operable to communicate with one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs using beamforming (Baykas: paragraph 0050, AP transmission scheme and/or signal to increase power toward a target STA while reducing the power that interferes with a STA associated with a neighboring AP), and the second AP cannot communicate with any of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0088, first period includes a restricted target wake time service period, thus excluding access by the second AP during the first scheduled service period), and
a second AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraphs 0086, 0095-0097 & Fig. 11, second period for communication with the second AP), wherein the second AP is operable to communicate with one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0083 & Fig. 10, plurality of STAs) using beamforming (Baykas: paragraph 0050, said AP transmission scheme), and the first AP cannot communicate with any of the plurality of STAs (Baykas: paragraph 0095, second period for communication may be a future scheduled period such as a (second) restricted target wake time service period; see also paragraph 0097, second period for communication by second AP does not overlap with (and/or avoids) the first period for communication by first AP).
Regarding Claim 16, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the second AP is operable to communicate with a STA outside of the SRMG using beamforming during the first AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraph 0098, second period for communication by the second AP may overlap the first period for communication by first AP).
Regarding Claim 17, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first AP is operable to communicate with a STA outside of the SRMG using beamforming during the second AP transmission period (Baykas: paragraph 0098, first period for communication by the first AP may overlap with the second period for communication by second AP).
Regarding Claim 18, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein determining the plurality of STAs are within range of the first AP and the second AP is based at least in part on any one of: (i) addresses of one or more STAs associated to the first AP, (ii) Received Signal Strength Indicators (RSSIs) of the one or more STAs associated to the first AP, (iii) addresses of one or more STAs associated to the second AP, (iv) RSSIs of the one or more STAs associated to the second AP, (v) addresses of one or more STAs detected by the first AP, (vi) addresses of one or more STAs detected by the second AP, or (vii) any combination of (i)-(vi) (Baykas: paragraphs 0101-0103, determine a received signal strength indicator (RSSIs)).
Regarding Claim 19, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein determining the schedule comprises determining an alternating schedule for the first AP and the second AP (Baykas: paragraph 0086, indicating a second period for communication by the second AP based on the first period for communication by the first AP and the (second) received signal strength indicator).
Regarding Claim 20, Baykas teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein determining the schedule is based at least in part on any one of (i) transmission information of the first AP and the second AP, (ii) communication requests of one or more STAs of the plurality of STAs, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (Baykas: paragraph 0096, second period for communication may be based on the first period for communication by AP and the received signal strength indicator).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2026/0089668 A1) teaches Aan access point (AP) receives from an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) AP, where the AP and the OBSS AP form a multi-AP group, a first frame: indicating disassociation of a station (STA) by the OBSS AP; and requesting association of the STA with the AP (see abstract).
Wilheilmi et al. (US 2025/0294594 A1) teaches receiving MAPC parameter set data from one or more other nodes of the wireless communication network, wherein each MAPC parameter set data comprises MAPC capabilities information identifying one or more MAPC features supported by the respective other node and details of supported functionality for each identified supported MAPC feature (see abstract).
Fang et al. (US 2025/0287329 A1) teaches transmission opportunity in an M-AP coordination system including a first access point communicating with a first set of stations (N stations) and a second access point communicating with a second set of stations (M stations) and further (paragraph 0018 & Fig. 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/NAJEEB ANSARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights