Obviousness

Due to the absence of specific prior art references within the provided patent text or through the executed searches, a comprehensive obviousness analysis of US Patent 10313077 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be performed at this time.

To conduct such an analysis, it is necessary to identify concrete prior art documents (e.g., other patents, publications) that predate the patent's priority date (June 29, 2015). With these specific references, an analyst would then:

1. Delineate the scope and content of the prior art. This involves understanding what each prior art reference discloses.
2. Identify the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art. This pinpoints what aspects of the patent's claims are not explicitly taught by individual prior art references.
3. Determine the level of ordinary skill in the art. For US10313077, this would generally pertain to wireless communication engineers or experts working with IEEE 802.11 standards.
4. Ascertain whether the differences would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention. This crucial step involves identifying a "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) in the prior art that would have led a POSITA to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success. This could be explicit suggestions, implicit motivations from the nature of the problem, or common knowledge in the field.

Without the actual list of cited prior art, it is impossible to identify specific combinations or articulate the motivations that would render the claims of US10313077 obvious.