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 Amendment
2. Claims 1, 11, 21 and 29-31 are amended. Claims 1-4, 9-14, 19-23 and 26-34 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 4/7/2026, with regards to claims 1-4, 9-14, 19-23 and 26-34 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserts that the combination of Kim, chu and Ko does not teach or suggest: “the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame includes a trigger-response scheduling (TRS) control field in a media access control (MAC) header of the PPDU, the TRS control field comprising a TRS control subfield including a control identifier”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The combination of Kim, chu and Ko, specifically Ko, teaches a frame that includes a triggered response scheduling (TRS) control subfield (TRS control subfield), and the PPDU is determined as the EHT PPDU or the HE PPDU according to a format of the frame including the TRS control subfield. (See Ko; Par. [21])
Ko teaches a frame which triggers a multi-user (MU) transmission may be transmitted, and on the basis of the frame, transmission or the response to the frame may be performed by one or more STAs. At this time, when transmitting the response to the frame is performed by the one or more STAs, one or more STAs may perform the response simultaneously and immediately based on the frame and the response to the frame may start transmission at the end of the PPDU including the frame after the SIFS. The frame which indicates or triggers transmission to one or more STAs may be a frame including information which indicates or triggers the UL transmission to one or more STAs, in the MAC header or the trigger frame. At this time, the frame may include information (for example, TRS control subfield) which triggers or indicates the UL transmission only to one STA in the MAC header. Information which indicates or triggers the UL transmission included in the MAC header may be a triggered response scheduling (TRS) or a TRS control subfield included in a HT control field, a control subfield, or an A-control subfield. The TB PPDU may be indicated through the TRS as well as the trigger frame. In addition, the TRS may be included in the HT control field as described above. For example, it is possible that the HT control field includes the TRS when including an A-control field. It is possible that the TRS is transmitted by the TRS control subfield. The A-control field may be a type in which the control list fields are continuously connected. In addition, the control list field may include the TRS. [Therefore, determining the TB PPDU format responding to the TRS based on the PPDU format including the TRS. That is, when the PPDU indicating the transmission of the PPDU includes the TRS control subfield, the format of the PPDU may be determined based on the format of the PPDU including the TRS control subfield] (See Ko; Par. [131] – [132], [259], [264])
Therefore, and for the reasons set above, the combination of Kim, chu and Ko teaches the claimed invention. The rejection of claims 1-4, 9-14, 19-23 and 26-34 is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-4, 9, 10-14, 19-23, 29-31 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0217797 A1) in view of Chu et al. (US. Pat. No. 10,237,891 B1) and further in view of Ko et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0319629 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for transmitting a first data unit and receiving a second data unit (See Par. [288]-[289] of Kim for a reference to the transmitting STA generates a first frame including Bandwidth Query Report (BQR) information for a multi-link. The transmitting STA transmits the first frame to a receiving STA) comprising:
transmitting the first data unit which indicates to a remote device to transmit the second data unit (See Par. [288]-[289], [294], [300], [319] of Kim for a reference to the transmitting STA generates a first frame including Bandwidth Query Report (BQR) information for a multi-link. The transmitting STA transmits the first frame to a receiving STA. The transmitting STA may receive a second frame from the receiving STA through the first link), and receiving from the remote device the second data unit in response to the transmission of the first data unit (See Par. [294], [300], [319] of Kim for a reference to that in response to receiving the first frame, the transmitting STA may receive a second frame from the receiving STA through the first link).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first data unit is a data frame in a physical layer convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) or management frame in the PPDU and wherein the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame includes a trigger-response scheduling (TRS) control field in a media access control (MAC) header of the PPDU, the TRS control field comprising a TRS control subfield including a control identifier which further comprises a value in a control information field of a media access control (MAC) header which indicates that both (i)the remote device is to transmit the second data unit and (ii) the remote device does not indicate a protocol which defines a format of the second data unit, wherein the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit is based on a protocol which defines a format of the first data unit which is the data frame or the management frame.
However, Chu discloses wherein the first data unit is a data frame in a physical layer convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) or management frame in the PPDU (See Col. 4; L 1-64 of Chu for a reference to generating, by the first communication device, a management frame that includes in DL MU physical layer (PHY) protocol data units (PPDU)) and wherein the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame comprises a value in a control information field of a media access control (MAC) header which indicates that both (i)the remote device is to transmit the second data unit and (See Col. 4; L 1-64, Col. 10; L25-57 and Fig. 3 of Chu for a reference to the management frame (bacon frame 310) ,transmitted by the AP, includes a frame control field 504 that indicates the value of the Association ID (AID), which identifies the client stations that are intended receivers of the frames or intended receivers of subsequent frames) ii the remote device does not indicate a protocol which defines a format of the second data unit (See Col. 5; L 20-47, Col. 12; L 52 – Col. 13; L 16 of Chu for a reference to the Association ID (AID) value does not indicate the protocol/format of the second data unit), wherein the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit is based on a protocol which defines a format of the first data unit which is the data frame or the management frame (See Col. 5; L 20-47, Col. 12; L 52 – Col. 13; L 16 of Chu for a reference to STA transmits the second data unit according to the first management frame’s protocol and format).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chu to Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing management overhead when using beacon frames that include or identify different AIDs for multiple BSSs defined by a multiple BSSID set supported by the AP device. (Chu; Col. 4; L 20-25)
The combination of Kim and Chu does not explicitly disclose the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame includes a trigger-response scheduling (TRS) control field in a media access control (MAC) header of the PPDU, the TRS control field comprising a TRS control subfield including a control identifier.
However, Ko discloses the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame includes a trigger-response scheduling (TRS) control field in a media access control (MAC) header of the PPDU (See Par. [21], [131]-[132] of Ko for a reference to the TB PPDU frame may include a trigger based scheduling (TRS) control subfield, which triggers or indicates the UL transmission only to one STA in the MAC header), the TRS control field comprising a TRS control subfield including a control identifier (See Par. [21], [259], [264], [276] of Ko for a reference to the scheduled STA is the only STA indicated by the TRS control subfield value included in the TB PPDU).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ko to the combination of Kim and Chu. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by efficiently signaling multi-link information and increasing the entire resource utilization. (Ko; Par. [26-29])
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein based on the value the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit is to be the same as the protocol which defines the format of the first data unit.
However, Chu discloses wherein based on the value the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit is to be the same as the protocol which defines the format of the first data unit (See Col. 5; L 20-47, Col. 12; L 52 – Col. 13; L 16 of Chu for a reference to STA transmits the second data unit according to the first management frame’s protocol and format).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chu to Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing management overhead when using beacon frames that include or identify different AIDs for multiple BSSs defined by a multiple BSSID set supported by the AP device. (Chu; Col. 4; L 20-25)
Regarding claim 3, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the value is a first value; and wherein the first data unit comprise one of the first value and a second value, the second value indicates that the remote device is to transmit the second data unit and indicates the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit, the second value is a control identification in the control information field of the first data unit.
However, Chu discloses wherein the value is a first value (See Col. 4; L 1-64, Col. 10; L25-57 and Fig. 3 of Chu for a reference to the management frame (bacon frame 310) ,transmitted by the AP, includes a frame control field 504 that indicates the value of the Association ID (AID) value); and wherein the first data unit comprise one of the first value and a second value (See Col. 4; L 47-64 of Chu for a reference to the receiver of the management frame derives a first AID and a second AID), the second value indicates that the remote device is to transmit the second data unit and indicates the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit, the second value is a control identification in the control information field of the first data unit (See Col. 5; L 20-47, Col. 12; L 52 – Col. 13; L 16 of Chu for a reference to STA transmits the second data unit according to the first management frame’s protocol and format indicated by the second AID value).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chu to Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing management overhead when using beacon frames that include or identify different AIDs for multiple BSSs defined by a multiple BSSID set supported by the AP device. (Chu; Col. 4; L 20-25)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim, Chu and Ko, specifically Kim discloses wherein a bit of a resource unit (RU) allocation field of the control information field indicates an RU bandwidth of the second data unit is more than 160 MHz (See Par. [110], [160], [180] and Fig. 13 of Kim for a reference to the control information field includes a user information field that comprises a resource unit (RU) allocation subfield. The TB PPDU is transmitted through the RU indicated in the (RU) allocation subfield. The RU bandwidth may be up to 240 MHz or 320 MHz [More than 160 MHz]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the protocol which defines the format of the first data unit is indicated in a physical layer header of the first data unit.
However, Chu discloses wherein the protocol which defines the format of the first data unit is indicated in a physical layer header of the first data unit (See Col. 4; L 1-64, Col. 10; L25-57 and Fig. 3 of Chu for a reference to the management frame (bacon frame 310), transmitted by the AP, with a header that includes a frame control field 504 that indicates the value of the Association ID (AID) value, which indicated the management frame’s format).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chu to Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing management overhead when using beacon frames that include or identify different AIDs for multiple BSSs defined by a multiple BSSID set supported by the AP device. (Chu; Col. 4; L 20-25)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kim and Chu does not explicitly disclose wherein the protocol defining the format of the second data unit is one of an extremely high throughput (EHT) and next generation (NG) EHT protocol.
However, Ko discloses wherein the protocol defining the format of the second data unit is one of an extremely high throughput (EHT) and next generation (NG) EHT protocol (See Par. [133] of Ko for a reference to the protocol defined in the trigger frame for transmitting the TB PPDU may be an extremely high throughput (EHT) and next generation (NG) EHT protocol [referred to as NEXT]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ko to the combination of Kim and Chu. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by efficiently signaling multi-link information and increasing the entire resource utilization. (Ko; Par. [26-29])
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including an access point (AP) (See Par. [62] and Fig. 1; Access point (AP) 110). comprising: first circuitry (See Fig. 1; Transceiver 113); and second circuitry (See Fig. 1; Transceiver 113).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses a method comprising:
receiving a first data unit which indicates to a remote device to transmit a second data unit (See Par. [288]-[289], [294], [300], [319] of Kim for a reference to the transmitting STA generates a first frame including Bandwidth Query Report (BQR) information for a multi-link. The transmitting STA transmits the first frame to a receiving STA. The transmitting STA may receive a second frame from the receiving STA through the first link), and transmitting from the remote device the second data unit in response to the transmission of the first data unit (See Par. [294], [300], [319] of Kim for a reference to that in response to receiving the first frame, the transmitting STA may receive a second frame from the receiving STA through the first link).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first data unit is a data frame in a physical layer convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) or management frame in the PPDU and wherein the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame includes a trigger-response scheduling (TRS) control field in a media access control (MAC) header of the PPDU, the TRS control field comprising a TRS control subfield including a control identifier which further comprises a value in a control information field of a media access control (MAC) header which indicates that both (i)the remote device is to transmit the second data unit and (ii) the remote device does not indicate a protocol which defines a format of the second data unit, wherein the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit is based on a protocol which defines a format of the first data unit which is the data frame or the management frame.
However, Chu discloses wherein the first data unit is a data frame in a physical layer convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) or management frame in the PPDU (See Col. 4; L 1-64 of Chu for a reference to generating, by the first communication device, a management frame that includes in DL MU physical layer (PHY) protocol data units (PPDU)) and wherein the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame comprises a value in a control information field of a media access control (MAC) header which indicates that both (i)the remote device is to transmit the second data unit and (See Col. 4; L 1-64, Col. 10; L25-57 and Fig. 3 of Chu for a reference to the management frame (bacon frame 310) ,transmitted by the AP, includes a frame control field 504 that indicates the value of the Association ID (AID), which identifies the client stations that are intended receivers of the frames or intended receivers of subsequent frames) ii the remote device does not indicate a protocol which defines a format of the second data unit (See Col. 5; L 20-47, Col. 12; L 52 – Col. 13; L 16 of Chu for a reference to the Association ID (AID) value does not indicate the protocol/format of the second data unit), wherein the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit is based on a protocol which defines a format of the first data unit which is the data frame or the management frame (See Col. 5; L 20-47, Col. 12; L 52 – Col. 13; L 16 of Chu for a reference to STA transmits the second data unit according to the first management frame’s protocol and format).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chu to Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing management overhead when using beacon frames that include or identify different AIDs for multiple BSSs defined by a multiple BSSID set supported by the AP device. (Chu; Col. 4; L 20-25)
The combination of Kim and Chu does not explicitly disclose the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame includes a trigger-response scheduling (TRS) control field in a media access control (MAC) header of the PPDU, the TRS control field comprising a TRS control subfield including a control identifier.
However, Ko discloses the first data unit which is a data frame or management frame includes a trigger-response scheduling (TRS) control field in a media access control (MAC) header of the PPDU (See Par. [21], [131]-[132] of Ko for a reference to the TB PPDU frame may include a trigger based scheduling (TRS) control subfield, which triggers or indicates the UL transmission only to one STA in the MAC header), the TRS control field comprising a TRS control subfield including a control identifier (See Par. [21], [259], [264], [276] of Ko for a reference to the scheduled STA is the only STA indicated by the TRS control subfield value included in the TB PPDU).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ko to the combination of Kim and Chu. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by efficiently signaling multi-link information and increasing the entire resource utilization. (Ko; Par. [26-29])
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Kim and Chu does not explicitly disclose wherein the value indicates that the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit is to be determined based on the protocol which defines the format of the first data unit.
However, Ko discloses wherein the value indicates that the protocol which defines the format of the second data unit is to be determined based on the protocol which defines the format of the first data unit. (See Par. [202]-[203] of Ko for a reference to the TRS value indicates the second frames format based on the first frame’s format. The protocol defines the first frame’s format is indicated by the TRS control field).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ko to the combination of Kim and Chu. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by efficiently signaling multi-link information and increasing the entire resource utilization. (Ko; Par. [26-29])
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 29.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 29.
Regarding claim 35, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the value in the control information field is set to 0.
However, Chu discloses wherein the value in the control information field is set to 0 (See Col. 20; L 22-65of Chu for a reference to the control field is being set to 0).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chu to Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing management overhead when using beacon frames that include or identify different AIDs for multiple BSSs defined by a multiple BSSID set supported by the AP device. (Chu; Col. 4; L 20-25)
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 35.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 35.
5. Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Chu et al. in view of Ko et al. and further in view of Yang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0346072 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Kim discloses first AID 12 and Second AID 12 indicates that an associated resource unit is to be randomly selected by the remote device based on an orthogonal frequency division multiple access (ODFMA) random access back off (OBO) value of an OBO counter (See Par. [166] and Fig. 14 of Kim for a reference to that based on the value of the AID field, when the OFDMA random access backoff (OBO) of a STA is decreased to 0, the STA randomly selects a second RU resource [AID 0, RU 2]); and receiving a trigger based PPDU based on the associated resource unit which is selected (See Par. [112], [141]-[142] and Fig. 10 of Kim for a reference to receiving the second data unit, which is a trigger-based (TB) PPDU 1041).
the combination of Kim, Chu and Ko does not explicitly disclose transmitting the first data unit which is the trigger frame having a plurality of user information fields, each user information field having a respective AID 12 value, wherein a first AID 12 value between 2008 to 2044; wherein a second AID12 value between 2008 to 2044; and wherein user information fields with AID 12 values of 2008 to 2044 follow user information fields with AID12 values of 1 to 2007 in the trigger frame and is located before a user information field with an AID12 value of 2046 in the trigger frame associated with a resource unit not to be used by the remote device; and receiving a trigger based PPDU based on the associated resource unit which is selected.
However Yang discloses transmitting the first data unit which is the trigger frame having a plurality of user information fields, each user information field having a respective AID 12 value, wherein a first AID 12 value between 2008 to 2044 (See Par. [22], [25], [183] and fig. 6 of Yang for a reference to the first indication [Mapped to the second value], that indicates a resource unit indicated by the resource allocation information, is located in the AID12 subfield. The first indication may be a special value from 2008 to 2044); wherein a second AID12 value between 2008 to 2044 (See Par. [22], [25], [183] and fig. 6 of Yang for a reference to the first indication [Mapped to the second value], that indicates a resource unit indicated by the resource allocation information, is located in the AID12 subfield. The first indication may be a special value from 2008 to 2044); and wherein user information fields with AID 12 values of 2008 to 2044 follow user information fields with AID12 values of 1 to 2007 in the trigger frame and is located before a user information field with an AID12 value of 2046 in the trigger frame associated with a resource unit not to be used by the remote device (See Par. [198]-[199] of Yang for a reference to the first indication [Mapped to the second value], that indicates a resource unit indicated by the resource allocation information, is located in the AID12 subfield. The first indication may be a special value from 1 to 2007 and is located before a user information field with an AID12 value of 2046 in the trigger frame).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang to the combination of Kim, Chu and Ko. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by improving system compatibility by reducing the subfield size. (Yang; Par. [13])
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 32.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 32.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Viger et al, (US. Pub. No. 2023/0217491 A1) discloses a method, device, apparatus to perform synchronized multi-AP operation.
Fellhauer et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0225344 A1) discloses a first communication devices comprising circuitry configured to simultaneously communicate with a group of two or more second communication devices.
Changlani et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0176685 A1) discloses systems and methods for dynamic client segregation in 802.11ax networks.
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights