Patent Application 17911275 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COORDINATING

Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COORDINATING MULTI-ACCESS POINT COMMUNICATIONS

Application Information

Invention Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COORDINATING MULTI-ACCESS POINT COMMUNICATIONS
Application Number: 17911275
Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-09-13T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-09-13T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 370
National Sub-Class: 328000
Examiner Employee Number: 99147
Art Unit: 2464
Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0022178🔗

Office Action Text

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 .

Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 5, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. §103 and 35 U.S.C. §101.

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.

The factual inquiries 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, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al. (US 2021/0022178 A1) in view of Wilhelmsson et al. (US 20230026426 A1).

Regarding claim 1, Verma et al. teaches a method of coordinating communications in a wireless network comprising a set of access points, APs, the method comprising (Paragraph 7, 46, 48, 62, The passages describe a method where multiple APs coordinate their transmissions using OFDMA, forming a CAPSS and communicating via OTA coordination. These passages identify and describe multiple access points participating in coordinated communication, thus fulfilling the BRI of a "set of APs"), and sharing resources during a transmission opportunity, TXOP, gained by a first AP of the formed group (Paragraph 7, This teaches that, once the first AP has won a TXOP, it shares orthogonal frequency resources with the other APs for simultaneous (parallel) transmissions within that same TXOP), wherein the first AP is configured to allocate resources to second APs of the formed group within the TXOP (Paragraph 7 & 52, These passages show the first AP’s configuration to allocate specific frequency (subchannel) resources to the other APs during its TXOP).
Verma et al. does not explicitly teach forming, from the set of APs, a group of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. teaches forming, from the set of APs, a group of Aps (Paragraph 33 & 35, These passages describe that a subset of APs (from the set of all APs) coordinate together, satisfying the BRI of forming a group of APs. Coordination for COFDMA implies these APs are grouped for joint operation) (Paragraph 63, 67, 69, The BRI of "forming a group of APs" includes any coordination between APs for shared operation. Wilhelmsson discloses that APs coordinate and share resources, which constitutes forming a group under BRI) based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources (Paragraph 33, 36, 51, 56, These passages confirm that capabilities such as willingness to participate in COFDMA, and the ability to use shared spectrum or concurrent transmissions, are exchanged prior to forming the coordination group. This aligns with the “exchanged capabilities” requirement), and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not (Paragraph 36, 46, 37, These excerpts show that APs explicitly indicate their readiness or willingness to engage in COFDMA operation, i.e., their enablement status. The fact that only willing and capable APs exchange CPRs (requests to join) shows that enablement status is effectively exchanged and used to determine grouping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide forming, from the set of APs, a group of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not as taught by Wilhelmsson et al., in the system of Verma et al., so that it would enable efficient coordination and resource sharing between APs with compatible capabilities and readiness for shared resource use during TXOPs.

Regarding claim 2, Verma et al. teaches the first AP is a coordinator AP of the communications and the second APs are coordinated Aps (Paragraph 46, The passage explains that a particular AP, referred to as the TXOP owner (i.e., the first AP), coordinates the transmission by detecting that other APs also have data and allocates resources for them to transmit within the same TXOP. This shows that the first AP acts as a coordinator by organizing transmissions and freeing up resources) (Paragraph 52, The passage discusses how the TXOP owner allocates subchannels to other APs, explicitly identifying these APs as participants in the coordinated communication) (Paragraph 53, This passage further emphasizes that the TXOP owner (the first AP) and other participating APs transmit on their respective allocated Resource Units (RUs), indicating that the second APs are coordinated APs following the instructions of the first AP).

Regarding claim 3, Verma et al. teaches the resources are one or a combination of time resources (Paragraph 28, This section describes Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), a technique where the same frequency channel is shared by multiple terminals, but the signal is divided into distinct time slots. Each user is allocated a different slot, directly teaching the use of time resources), space resources (Paragraph 28 & 35, These sections describe Spatial Division Multiple Access (SDMA), a system where multiple users are served simultaneously by transmitting signals in different spatial directions. This corresponds to the use of space resources, as the technique exploits antenna directionality or beamforming to separate transmissions) and frequency resources (Paragraph 28 & 45, These sections explain Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), a technique where the available frequency spectrum is divided into orthogonal sub-carriers for different users. The allocation of frequency resources to separate users aligns with the claim).

Regarding claim 7, Verma et al. teaches a coordinator access point, AP, in a wireless network comprising a group of APs sharing resources during a transmission opportunity, TXOP, gained by the coordinator AP of the group (Paragraph 7, 46, 53, a "coordinator AP" is broadly any AP that gains the TXOP and facilitates resource use by other APs. Verma discloses a “first AP” that gains a TXOP and coordinates with other APs to share resources during that TXOP, satisfying this claim element), the coordinator AP is configured to allocate resources to coordinated APs of the group within the TXOP (Paragraph 52 & 62, Verma discloses that the TXOP owner (coordinator AP) sends allocation information to participating APs, which constitutes allocation of resources within the TXOP. This teaches the claim part under BRI)
Verma et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the group is formed from a set of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. teaches wherein the group is formed from a set of APs (Paragraph 33 & 35, These passages describe that a subset of APs (from the set of all APs) coordinate together, satisfying the BRI of forming a group of APs. Coordination for COFDMA implies these APs are grouped for joint operation) (Paragraph 63, 67, 69, The BRI of "forming a group of APs" includes any coordination between APs for shared operation. Wilhelmsson discloses that APs coordinate and share resources, which constitutes forming a group under BRI) based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources (Paragraph 33, 36, 51, 56, These passages confirm that capabilities such as willingness to participate in COFDMA, and the ability to use shared spectrum or concurrent transmissions, are exchanged prior to forming the coordination group. This aligns with the “exchanged capabilities” requirement), and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not (Paragraph 36, 46, 37, These excerpts show that APs explicitly indicate their readiness or willingness to engage in COFDMA operation, i.e., their enablement status. The fact that only willing and capable APs exchange CPRs (requests to join) shows that enablement status is effectively exchanged and used to determine grouping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the group is formed from a set of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not as taught by Wilhelmsson et al., in the system of Verma et al., so that it would enable efficient coordination and resource sharing between APs with compatible capabilities and readiness for shared resource use during TXOPs.

Regarding claim 8, Verma et al. teaches a coordinated access point, AP, in a wireless network (Paragraph 46, 48, 53, Verma discloses multiple APs that coordinate within a system called a CAPSS. At least one of the APs in this coordinated set corresponds to the claimed “coordinated AP” under BRI, which includes any AP participating in coordination) comprising a group of APs sharing resources during a transmission opportunity, TXOP, gained by a coordinator AP of the group (Paragraph 7, 46, 52, 53, The “coordinator AP” (TXOP owner) allocates time-frequency resources (e.g., subchannels) during its TXOP to other APs for simultaneous transmissions. This satisfies BRI of a “group of APs sharing resources during a TXOP gained by a coordinator AP”), the coordinated AP is configured to use resources shared by the coordinator AP within the TXOP (Paragraph 46, 53, 62, The disclosure shows that other APs (besides the TXOP owner) use the shared subchannels to transmit during the same TXOP, thereby meeting the BRI of the “coordinated AP” using the coordinator AP’s resources).
Verma et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the group is formed from a set of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status indicating that the APs of their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. teaches wherein the group is formed from a set of APs (Paragraph 33 & 35, These passages describe that a subset of APs (from the set of all APs) coordinate together, satisfying the BRI of forming a group of APs. Coordination for COFDMA implies these APs are grouped for joint operation) (Paragraph 63, 67, 69, The BRI of "forming a group of APs" includes any coordination between APs for shared operation. Wilhelmsson discloses that APs coordinate and share resources, which constitutes forming a group under BRI) based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources (Paragraph 33, 36, 51, 56, These passages confirm that capabilities such as willingness to participate in COFDMA, and the ability to use shared spectrum or concurrent transmissions, are exchanged prior to forming the coordination group. This aligns with the “exchanged capabilities” requirement), and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not (Paragraph 36, 46, 37, These excerpts show that APs explicitly indicate their readiness or willingness to engage in COFDMA operation, i.e., their enablement status. The fact that only willing and capable APs exchange CPRs (requests to join) shows that enablement status is effectively exchanged and used to determine grouping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the group is formed from a set of APs based on exchanged capabilities of the APs indicating that the APs are capable of sharing and/or using shared resources, and/or on exchanged enablement status of the APs indicating that their function to share and/or use shared resources is enabled or not as taught by Wilhelmsson et al., in the system of Verma et al., so that it would enable efficient coordination and resource sharing between APs with compatible capabilities and readiness for shared resource use during TXOPs.

Regarding claim 9, Verma et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program (Paragraph 91, The claim specifies that the medium is "non-transitory," which is directly supported by the passage stating that certain computer-readable media can be non-transitory. This establishes that the type of medium mentioned in the claim is explicitly covered in the disclosure) (Paragraph 92, This matches because the passage mentions a "computer-readable medium having instructions stored (and/or encoded)," which aligns with the claim's assertion that the medium contains a computer program encoded with instructions. This indicates that the passage teaches the concept of encoding a program within the medium) comprising instructions adapted for the carrying out of each of the steps of the method according to claim 1 (Paragraph 92, The claim states that the instructions are adapted to carry out specific method steps. The passage indicates that the instructions are "executable by one or more processors to perform the operations described," which teaches that these instructions are designed to implement the method's steps. This supports the idea that the medium contains instructions tailored for executing the method claimed in claim 1) when the computer program is executed on a computer (Paragraph 91, The claim specifies that the program must be executed on a computer. The passage teaches that the functions (or instructions) are stored on a computer-readable medium, indicating that these instructions are intended to be executed on a computer. This demonstrates a clear relationship between the claim’s requirement for execution and the passage’s description of the intended functionality of the software).

Regarding claim 10, Verma et al. teaches the resources are one or a combination of time resources (Paragraph 28, This section describes Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), a technique where the same frequency channel is shared by multiple terminals, but the signal is divided into distinct time slots. Each user is allocated a different slot, directly teaching the use of time resources), space resources (Paragraph 28 & 35, These sections describe Spatial Division Multiple Access (SDMA), a system where multiple users are served simultaneously by transmitting signals in different spatial directions. This corresponds to the use of space resources, as the technique exploits antenna directionality or beamforming to separate transmissions) and frequency resources (Paragraph 28 & 45, These sections explain Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), a technique where the available frequency spectrum is divided into orthogonal sub-carriers for different users. The allocation of frequency resources to separate users aligns with the claim).

Regarding claim 11, Verma et al. teaches the first AP is a coordinator AP of the communications (Paragraph 46, 52-53, 62, “coordinator AP of the communications” may be interpreted as any AP that takes a leadership or coordination role in managing resource allocation among other APs. Verma’s “TXOP Owner” (AP1) performs this role by initiating the coordination, allocating subchannels, and informing other APs, which meets the coordination function) and the second APs are coordinated Aps (Paragraph 46, 52, 53, 62, “coordinated APs” includes APs that participate in a coordinated communication process, such as being allocated frequency resources and participating in joint or synchronized transmissions. Verma describes AP2 and AP3 receiving subchannel allocations from AP1 and then transmitting during the same TXOP, which qualifies as “coordinated APs.” Therefore, Verma fully teaches this claim part).

Regarding claim 12, Verma et al. teaches the resources are one or a combination of time resources, space resources and frequency resources (Paragraph 7, This teaches frequency resources under BRI. "Orthogonal frequency resources" unambiguously correspond to distinct subchannels or subcarriers used for parallel transmissions. "Within a transmit opportunity" also implies temporal bounding (TXOP), which can map to time resources under BRI) (Paragraph 28, This paragraph supports that time (TDMA), frequency (OFDMA), and space (SDMA) resources are all contemplated in systems where the described methods apply. Under BRI, this shows the claimed “resources” can include any of the three types) (Paragraph 45, Reinforces use of frequency resources, and under BRI this applies even if it is within a single AP context. The claim is not limited to multiple APs coordinating, so this teaches part of the claimed “resources”) (Paragraph 46, Again, this teaches frequency resources (by allocating “frequency channels”) and time resources (since sharing occurs “in the same TXOP”). This supports two of the three types) (Paragraph 47, Confirms the frequency resource use and suggests space diversity (e.g., from multiple spatially distributed APs), which supports space resources under BRI) (Paragraph 52, Allocated “subchannels” are frequency resources. Reference to “MU or SU” suggests multiple spatial streams (SU = Single User, MU = Multi-User), supporting space resources under BRI) (Paragraph 53, “Resource Units” are a known OFDMA concept tied to frequency resources. Since the allocation occurs during a TXOP, it is again bounded in time, supports time resources under BRI) (Paragraph 62, These allocated subchannels again correspond to frequency resources, occurring within a TXOP (time resources). Coordination among APs also implies spatial diversity in practice (space resources under BRI)).

Regarding claim 13, Verma et al. teaches the resources are one or a combination of time resources, space resources and frequency resources (Paragraph 7, Explicitly teaches frequency resources allocated among access points during a TXOP) (Paragraph 28, Describes systems using space (SDMA), time (TDMA), and frequency (OFDMA) division. Under narrow interpretation it confirms that the disclosed techniques may employ these resource types) (Paragraph 45, Explicitly supports frequency resource division) (Paragraph 47, Clearly indicates coordinated use of frequency resources across APs) (Paragraph 35, Describes the use of spatial, temporal, and frequency resources, reinforcing that the techniques apply to all three dimensions of resource allocation).

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Claims 4-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a data structure per se which only provides a description of the data carried within it.

Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.

/ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464