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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 10/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/10/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been considered and placed in the application file.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherian et al. (US 2019/0036583) (hereinafter “Cherian”).
Regarding claim 1, in according with Cherian reference entirety, Cherian discloses a system (FIG. 10; 1000 and para [0096]) comprising:
a first access point (AP) (FIG. 10; 404A and para [0096]: “… the AP 404A may be the leader AP as it has obtained and controls the TXOP at block 1002 … .”) configured to:
transmit, to a second AP (FIG. 10; AP 404B) that is capable of participating in coordinated beamforming (CBF), a first notification frame comprising (para [0085]: "For CoBF, an AP (e.g., AP404a) may serve its own STAs (e.g., STA 406a and STA 406b ), and use under-utilized antennas to send null (e.g. a null beam) to outer BSS (OBSS) non-reuse STAs to reduce interference. Thus, increasing the number of AP antennas is key to improving CoBF opportunities. There may be no need for an AP to send nulls to OBSS reuse STAs as they are not positioned in such a manner as to be vulnerable to interference from the AP, as described. In some cases, the communication system as described herein may be a managed network where one AP (e.g., AP 404a) has control over the operations of the other APs (e.g., AP 404b, AP 404c, and AP 404d), or may be an unmanaged network where the APs operate independently") a first set of stations to participate in a CBF transmission (para [0067]: "... Each of the APs may identify re-use and non-reuse STAs in its own BSS. A reuse STA may refer to a STA that can be scheduled in a CoBF TXOP without being nulled by other participating AP. In otherwords, a reuse STA (e.g., STA 406a) may be positioned such that a downlink (DL) transmission from its own AP (e.g., AP 404a) does not cause interference with DL transmissions in other BSSs. On the other hand, a non-reuse STA is a STA (e.g., STA 406b) that is positioned such that a DL transmission from its own AP (e.g., AP 404a) causes interference with DL transmissions in other BSSs. Non-reuse STAs may be scheduled in a CoBF TXOP with nulling to avoid interfering with transmission from other APs participating in that TXOP." Furthermore; para [0086]: "... The leader AP may be the owner of the TXOP, and may allow other APs to join the leader for the CoBF join transmission using the TXOP. The leader AP may invite other APs to join a CoBF transmission during the TXOP with some constraints. For example, the leader AP may identify the non-reuse STAs in its own BSS that are scheduled for that TXOP and may need nulling if other APs transmit during the TXOP. The identity of those STAs may be included in the invite signaling to let other APs know that if they choose to accept the invitation to participate in the CoBF, they should have the capability to send nulls to the identified non-reuse STAs. Thus, the APs that participate in the CoBF transmission during the TXOP may send nulls to the identified non-reuse STAs in the invite signaling. By default, invited APs may schedule only their reuse STAs during the TXOP, but with implementation of CoBF, invited APs are able to schedule their non-reuse STAs as well." Moreover; para [0096]: "... At block 1004, AP 404a may send a CoBF invite message to AP 404a and AP 404b, which may be a trigger variant broadcast frame. The CoBF invite message may indicate the non-reuse STAs of AP 404a, allowing AP 404b and AP 404c to know whether they can participate in CoBF during the TXOP. At blocks 1006 and 1008, AP 404B and AP 404C then decide whether to accept the invitation for CoBF, and determine their respective reuse and non-reuse STAs. At blocks 1010 and 1012, AP 404B and AP 404C may then send CoBF accept messages to AP 404a, indicating their respective non-reuse STAs to AP 404a. The Co BF accept messages may be sent as a high efficiency (HE) trigger-based (TB) physical layer convergence procedure (PLCP) protocol data unit (PPDU). At block 1014, AP 404a may then select all or some of the non-reuse STAs of AP 404b and AP 404c to participate in the CoBF transmission during the TXOP based on its own available spatial dimensions and ability to NULL the non-reuse STAs during the CoBF transmission");
receive, from the second AP, responsive to the first notification frame, a first response frame comprising a second set of stations to participate in the CBF transmission (para [0096]: "... At block 1004, AP 404a may send a CoBF invite message to AP 404a and AP 404b, which may be a trigger variant broadcast frame. The CoBF invite message may indicate the non-reuse STAs of AP 404a, allowing AP 404b and AP 404c to know whether they can participate in CoBF during the TXOP. At blocks 1006 and 1008, AP 404B and AP 404C then decide whether to accept the invitation for CoBF, and determine their respective reuse and non-reuse STAs. At blocks 1010 and 1012, AP 404B and AP 404C may then send CoBF accept messages to AP 404a … .”); and
transmit data in the CBF transmission to at least one station of the first set of stations or the second set of stations, responsive to the first response frame (para [0098]: "... At block 1202, AP 404c may transmit a CoBF trigger frame to AP 404b and AP 404c to trigger a DL multi-user (MU) CoBF transmission. The CoBF trigger frame may include an indication of the PPDU duration for the MU CoBF transmission and the identification of the non-reuse STAs. At block 1204, MU CoBF transmissions are sent from AP 404a, AP 404b, and AP 404c during the TXOP, as illustrated. For example, AP 404a may send data to AP 404a's STAs while also sending null to the non-reuse STAs of AP 404b and AP 404c, based the sounding information, to reduce interference to the non-reuse STAs of AP 404b and AP 404c." From this disclosure, it is equated that the MU CoBF transmissions are sent from the APs to the STAs corresponding to the claim limitation in the present condition).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Cherian also discloses wherein the CBF transmission is configured for transmission in accordance with a CBF transmission opportunity (TXOP) having a predetermined time interval, the first AP configured to transmit, to the second AP, information about the predetermined time interval of the CBF TXOP (para [0086]: "An AP that obtains (e.g., controls) a TXOP becomes may be referred to as the leader AP for that TXOP. The leader AP may be the owner of the TXOP, and may allow other APs to join the leader for the CoBF join transmission using the TXOP. The leader AP may invite other APs to join a CoBF transmission during the TXOP with some constraints. For example, the leader AP may identify the non-reuse STAs in its own BSS that are scheduled for that TXOP and may need nulling if other APs transmit during the TXOP. The identity of those STAs may be included in the invite signaling to let other APs know that if they choose to accept the invitation to participate in the CoBF, they should have the capability to send nulls to the identified non-reuse STAs. Thus, the APs that participate in the CoBF transmission during the TXOP may send nulls to the identified non-reuse STAs in the invite signaling. By default, invited APs may schedule only their reuse STAs during the TXOP, but with implementation of CoBF, invited APs are able to schedule their non-reuse STAs as well.").
As per claim 11, the claim appears to call for a method having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of system claim 1. Thus, it is anticipated by Cherian for the same rationales applied to system claim 1 as above discussed.
As per claim 20, the claim appears to call for a system having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of system claim 1. Thus, it is anticipated by Cherian for the same rationales applied to system claim 1 as above discussed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, appears to fail to fairly show or suggest a claim invention of base claims 1 and 11 and further limits with novel and unobvious limitations of “wherein the first AP is further configured to: transmit, to the second AP, a second notification frame comprising information of the first set of stations for constructing a preamble of the CBF physical-layer protocol data unit (PPDU); and receive, from the second AP, responsive to the second notification frame, a second response frame comprising information of the second set of stations to construct the preamble of the CBF PPDU to use for the CBF transmission,” as recited in claims 2-3, 9, 12-13, and 19; “identify at least one of downlink channel-state information (CSI) reported by one or more stations of the first AP or data traffic of the first AP for transmission to one or more stations of the first AP; and select, based on the identification, the first set of stations, wherein the second set of stations of the first response frame is selected based on at least one of a downlink channel-state information (CSI) reported by stations of the second set of stations or data traffic of the second AP pending for transmission,” as recited in claims 4 and 14; “implement a channel sounding sequence with a plurality of stations associated with the first AP; select, responsive to the channel sounding sequence, from the plurality of stations, the first set of stations, wherein the second set of stations is selected from a plurality of stations associated with the second AP based on one or more channel sounding sequences implemented by the second AP with the plurality of stations associated with the second AP,” as recited in claim 5, 8, 15, and 18; “generate a first list identifying at least one of the stations of a first set of candidate stations of the first AP or a list of station groups constructed from at least one of a first set of candidate stations of the first AP or a second set of candidate stations of the second AP; and insert the first list into the first notification frame to indicate the first set of stations,” as recited in claims 6, and 16; “insert, in the first notification frame, a first information for constructing a preamble for the CBF transmission; receive, via the first response frame, a second information for constructing the preamble for the CBF transmission; and construct the preamble for the CBF transmission using at least the first information or the second information,” as recited in claims 7 and 17, structurally and functionally interconnected in a manner as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang et al,. (US 2021/0044333).
Doostnejad et al. (US 2020/0213160).
Chun et al. (US 10,548,146).
Bellalta et al., AP-initiated multi-user transmissions in IEEE 802.11ax WLANs, ELSEVIER, 15 pages, March 15, 2019.
Shen et al., Coordinated Multiple Access Point Multiuser Beamforming Training Protocol for Millimeter Wave WLANs, IEEE, 15 pages, November 2020.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 October 8, 2026
